Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at |http: //books .google .com/I
9
1
GENESIS
AND
SEMITIC TK ADITIQ N
BY
JOHN D. DAVIS, Ph.D.
PBOPBSSOB OF SBJfinO PHILOLOGY AND OLD TBSTAlfEMT HISTORY IN THE
THBOLOQIOAL SBMINABY AT PKINOETON, N. J.
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER^S SONS
1894
COFTBIQHT, 1894, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
TROW DmeCTORY
PRINTINQ AND BOOKBINOINQ COMPAHY
NEW YORK
PREFACE
Babylonian traditions concerning primitive times were
cited by Greek and Jewish writers. These reports indi-
cated that the peoples of Semitic race or Babylonian cult-
ure who dwelt on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers had ac-
counts of the early ages which told the same story as the
Hebrew narratives or showed common conceptions with
them. But the genuineness, at times, and the antiquity
of these reputed Babylonian traditions were questioned,
and the doubts connected with them seriously detracted
from their value for purposes of criticism. Investiga-
tion received new impetus and encouragement from
that notable series of brilliant discoveries which were be-
gun, it may be said without invidious comparison, by
George Smith. Documents of great age, written in cunei-
form characters, were unearthed which both confirmed
tl^e general trustworthiness of the Greek citations which
have been mentioned, and demonstrated that much, per-,
haps all, of the doctrine taught in Israel concerning prim-'
itive times was an inheritance from Babylonia.
These native records have illuminated and elucidated
cr-- the early chapters of Genesis. They have established
the antiquity of the Hebrew narratives as traditions, with
y>^ all that this fact involves for interpretation, and thev
"^ have contributed particulars of greater or less value,
C> which were wanting in the Hebrew record, but which
serve to at least cast a side light and sometimes to make
methods and conceptions plain which before were ob-
scure or ambiguous.
{^
IV PREFACE
But along with the valuable material which has been
obtained from these records of the past, much that is
worthless has been dragged into publicity. Mistransla-
tions, due in part to the infancy of the science of Assyr-
iology and in part to undue haste, have been put forward,
meaning has been wrested from the narratives which they
were never intended to bear, and false conclusions have
been drawn ; and these errors have gained currency in
popular literature and have been made the basis of ar-
gument in works which assume to speak with authority
on biblical matters.
The purpose of this book is to attempt the removal
^f the accumulated rubbish and expose the true mate-
rial ; and when the work of separation has been accom-
plished as thoroughly as possible, to subject the gen-
uine materials to careful investigation. In not a few
instances the Hebrew narrative still stands alone, no par-
allel account having been found in the literature of other
nations. When such is the case, the attempt is made to
discover the meaning of the record in the manner of or-
dinary exegesis, with all the aid afforded by early He-
brew understanding of the tradition. It is regretted that
on several topics negative results only can be obtained,;
but patience with negative results and the quiet tarry-
ing by the argument for and against are better than haste.
The so-called Non-Semitic Version of the Creation-
Story has not been introduced into the discussion. The
text of this document has not been published, so far as
the writer knows, but it has been rendered into Eng-
' lish by so competent a translator as Mr. Pinches, of the
British Museum. It has not been compared in these
pages with the Hebrew records, because it is not a for-
mal and orderly account of creation, but merely consti-
tutes the introduction to a dedicatory prayer uttered
on occasion, apparently, of the building or repairing of
PREFACE V
the great temple of Esagila in Babylon and its numer-
ous sanctuaries. Being the introductory remarks to the
prayer, it fittingly recalls moments of creation, begin-
ning in the time before the earth was, by which a place
was prepared for that famous seat of worship. It con-
tains references to creation, just as do the eighth Psalm
and the thirty-eighth chapter of Job and the second
chapter of Genesis. In fact, it forms a strict parallel
to these passages, notably to the latter one as this has
been traditionally interpreted, in that it gives a resume
of such events in the history of creation as were ap-
propriate, to introduce the subject in hand.
It remains to be said that the chapter on the creation
of the universe is reprinted in the present volume al-
most verbatim from the pages of the Presbyterian and
Reformed Review for July, 1892. The chapter on the
flood appeared originally in the tenth volume of the
Presbyterian Review, but it has been revised and con-
siderably enlarged for the present publication.
J. D. D.
August 17, 1894.
X-
CONTENTS
PAOB
I. The Creation op the Universe, 1
II. The Sabbath, 23
III. The Creation of Man, 36
IV. The Help Meet for Man, .... .48
V. The Site op the Garden of Eden, .... 55
r VI. The Temptation op Man, 63
VII. The Serpent op the Temptation, .... 68
Vm. The Cherubim, 78
IX. Cain and Abel, 85
X. Cainitbs and Sethites, 90
XI. The Sons op God, 101
XII. The Deluge, 110
XIII. The Mighty Hunter, 135
XIV. The Tower op Babel, 141
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fight Between Marduk and the Dragon Tiamat,
The So-called Adam and Eve Cylinder,
The Seal of Ddngi, King op Ur, .
Seal with a Serpent and Other Emblems,
IZDUBAR and the BULL, .
Marduk in Combat with Tiamat, .
Marduk in Combat with Tiamat, .
The Cherubim Seal of Lenormant,
Winged Human -headed Bulls,
Scorpion Men,
Colossal Belief of Izdubar, .
Ancient Babylonian Tower, .
Hunting Scenes in the Career of Izdubar,
PAGE
4
68
63
63
67
70
71
78
78
80
136
140
146
GENESIS AND SEMITIC
TRADITION
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE
Fbom the broken and scattered remains of ancient
Assyrian and Babylonian literature there has been re-
covered, as is well known, a story of creation, notable \
for its striking resemblance to the Hebrew account. The
narrative exists in mutilated condition, it is true ; never-
theless, since it was written on a series of tablets, each
of which contained the title of the complete work, the
number to indicate its place in the series, and a catch-
line with the opening words of the succeeding plate, the
rearrangement of the fragments in their original order is
possible, and with that is established the succession of
incidents in the story as once told.^
The account begins with a primitive chaos.
" At the time when on high the heaven announced not,
Below the earth named not a name,
[That is to say : When heaven and earth did not exist]
Then primeval ocean, their generator, [and]
Mnmmu Tiamat [the watery deep], the bearer of their totality,
United their waters as one."
1 Translations of the text, inclusive of Bxssam's additions, are offered,
though of course with many reservations, in English by Sayce, Records of
the Past, new series, vol. i., 122 seq., and in German by Jensen, Kosmologie
der Babylonier, S. 268 ff.
2 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
The origin of the gods was next narrated, but unfort-
unately the tablet is broken off obliquely at this point,
and the ends of several lines carried away. The rem-
nants state that
" At the time when none of the gods had been brought into ex-
istence,
[When] a name had not been named, destiny not determined.
Then were made the gods
The gods Lachmu and Lachamu were brought into existence .
And grew up
Anshar and Kishar were made
Many days passed by
God Anu [was then made] "
This portion of the story has been told in Greek by
the neo-platonist Damascius, who had opportunities for
learning it, if not in the schools of Alexandria and
Athens, at least during his sojourn at the Persian court.
His version goes beyond the tablets in expressly stating
the material origin of the gods. With omission of his
interpretation, his report is that
"The Babylonians assumed two principles of the universe,
Tauthe and Apason [i.e., Tiamat and Apsu] ; making Apason the
husband of Tauthe and naming her the mother of the gods. Of
these two there was bom an only-begotten son, Moymis. From
these same another generation proceeded, Lache and Lachos.
Then also from the same [original pair] a third generation, Kis-
sare and Assoros ; from whom sprang Anos, lUinos, and Aos ; and
of Aos and Dauke Belos was bom, the fabricator of the world."
«
The cuneiform narrative suffers a long interruption at
this point, due to breakage and loss of the tablets.
When the story is recovered, it appears that trouble has
arisen :
Tiamat has done evil to the gods and is now their enemy.
Lachamu has become her ally (iii., 31 obv.) and a troop of hideous
creatures, eleven in number, stand ready to assist her (iv., 106,
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE 3
115). Anshar has in vain sent god Ann [heaven] to prinish the of-
fenders ; Ea [the waters of the earth] has turned back from the
mission aghast ; and finally Mardnk [the rising snn] has been /
chosen as avenger and hailed as king.
The gods seat their chosen chami^ion in the princely chamber,
and assign him dominion over the universe (iv., 14), declare his
weapons irresistible (1., 16), proclaim his word all-powerful, fur-
nish him proof thereof (20-26), and bid him go forth and slay
Tiamat (31).
Marduk thereupon arms himself; grasps a spear in his right
hand, hangs bow and quiver on his side (37-38), places lightning
in front of him, fills his body with flames ; he prepares a net to
cast over the foe, takes in hand the four winds, arouses a hurri-
cane, an evil wind, a storm, a tempest, the four winds, the seven
winds, the cyclone. He sends forth the seven winds in advance
to confuse Tiamat, while he himself takes the storm, his great
weapon, mounts his war chariot (50), and in the sight of the gods
sets out to meet the monster (60). He finds her and challenges
her to battle (86). She at once arms, and the combatants ap-
proach. Marduk spreads his net around her ; releases a hurri-
cane against her which enters her open mouth and prevents her
lips from closing, fills her body with a strong wind, pierces her
with his spear, grasps and slays her, casts her body down and
stands upon it. Leaving the slain Tiamat, he turns his attention
to her hideous troop, at once routs them, pursues, captures, and
binds them and destroys their weapons.
Having established Anshar's superiority over the enemy, he re-
turned to the body of Tiamat, cleft it in twain and with one half
overshadowed the heavens (made a covering for the heavens),
then shoved in a bolt, and also set a watchman with orders not to
allow the waters to stream forth. Having placed the heavens op-
posite the watery abyss, he measured the latter and founded an
edifice like unto Ishara, like the palace Ishara, which he had built
as heaven ; and let Anu, Bel, and Ea occupy their dwellings.
Then he embellished the heavens, prepared places for the great
gods, made the stars, set the zodiac, founded a place for Nibiru,
fixed the poles and opened gates provided with locks on either
side.
He caused the moon to shine forth and subjected the night to
it, he laid the duty upon it every month without fail to mark off
[time] with its crown, at the beginning of the month to show
4 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
horns at evening, on the seventh day to reveal half the crown, on
the fourteenth day to stand opposite.
The remainder of this tablet is too broken to admit of
connected translation.
One more small fragment of the series exists, but its
place in the set is not known farther than that, judged
by its contents, it must follow those already mentioned.
It narrates only the creation of plants (possibly) and
animals. Any reference to man it may have contained
is broken off. According to it,
"When the gods in their assembly created, they (?) made strong
tree trunks (?) brought forth living [crea]tures . . . cattle of
the field, [beasts] of the field, and creeping things. , . ."
Such is the story of creation as told by the tablets.
But, as is well known, the teaching of the Babylonians
was also committed to writing by Berosus, priest of Bel.
A portion of the priest's account was cited by Alexander
Polyhistor and quoted from his writings by Eusebius
and Geoi^us Syncellus. In these citations the Babylo-
nian priest states that, according to the doctrine of his
fellow-countrymen,
''There was a time when nothing existed but darkness and
water, wherein resided most hideous beings which were produced
of a twofold principle. For men were begotten with two wings ;
some, moreover, with four wings and two faces and having one
body, but two heads, the one that of a man, the other that of a
woman, and being in their several organs both male and female ;
and yet other men appeared, some with the limbs and horns of
goats, others with the feet of horses, others with the hind-quarters
of a horse and the body of a man, resembling in shape the hippo-
centaura. Bulls likewise were bred there with the heads of men,
and dogs with four bodies terminated in their extremities with
the tails of fishes, and horses with the heads of dogs, and men and
other animals with the heads and bodies of horses and the tails of
fishes. In short, there were creatures which combined the shapes
of all sorts of animals ; and in addition to these were fishes, rep-
i
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE 5
tiles, serpents, and other animals monstrous and transformed iu
that they had each other's faces. Representations of these are
preserved in the temple of Bel.
" A woman presided over all these by name Omoroka, which in
the Chaldean language is BakarB,^ but in Greek is interpreted the
sea (BoKaaaa), or, as it might be equally well rendered, the moon.
When all things were in this condition, Bel came, cut the woman
asunder, of one half of her formed the earth and of the other half
the heavens, and destroyed the animals which were within her.
All this, he says, was an allegorical description of nature ; for the
whole universe consisting of moisture and animals having been
generated therein, the deity above mentioned removed his own
head, and the other gods mixed the outflowing blood with earth
and formed men ; wherefore they are intelligent and {>artake of
divine thought. Now this Bel, by whom they signify Zeus, cleft
[as has already been slated in more allegorical language] the dark-
ness asunder, separated earth and heaven from each other, and
reduced the universe to order. Now the [nondescript] animals,
since they were not able to endure the power of the light, per-
ished. Bel thereupon, seeing a waste but fertile region, com-
manded one of the gods to remove his [Bel's] head and mix the
earth with the thence-flowing blood, and form men and beasts
capable of enduring the air. Bel, moreover, made stars and sun
and moon and the five planets.*'
No argument is needed to prove that Berosus and
Damascias and the scribe who wrote the tablets have the
same story in mind. The fact is patent that these tales
are outcroppings of one and the same tradition ; a tradi-
tion, furthermore, which extends through many ages, and
whose traces may be followed back into remote antiquity.
The neo-platonist philosopher wrote his concise version
about the year 560 after Christ. The priest Berosus
penned his account nine hundred years earlier, in the
days of Alexander the Great ; but even then tablets con-
taining the cuneiform account were old. They had been
lying buried for three centuries beneath the ruins of
' In uncials eAAAT9, which Robertson Smith happily conjectures to be a
misreading of OAMTE, tdmtu (ZA. 1891, S. 339).
6 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
Nineveh, having been prepared for Ashorbanipal about
650 years before Christ (colophon of fifth tablet). But the
story in some form was current earlier still. The con-
flict of Marduk and the dragon was depicted on the
sculptured mural slabs of the palace which Ashumatsir-
pal built at Calah 880 years before Christ. Yet more
ancient was the restoration of Marduk's temple at Baby-
lon, which Agukakrime undertook. This king reigned
later than 1050 b.o. (Delitzsch, 1883), or more probably
before the beginning of the fifteenth century B.C. (Tiele,
1885; Bezold, 1886; Sayce, 1888; Guide to British
Museum, 1890). The royal restorer relates that he deco-
rated the temple doors with certain objects which he
names, and which prove to be the hideous beings allied
with Tiamat. Besides the(&e more important monuments
of which the date is known, there are numerous undated
cylinder seals, covering fairly well the entire period of
Assyro-Babylonian civilization, engraven with various
scenes from the story and revealing thereby the wide
publicity and popularity of the tale. Jensen surmises
an earlier date than the earliest which has been men-
tioned. He argues that the progress of the returning
sun of spring among the constellations, placed and
named as they are, and its position at the autumnal
equinox repeat the story of the conflict of Marduk with
Tiamat and her allies ; and hence that the starry host
received these names when they occupied such a posi-
tion with reference to the sun that with his appearance
at the vernal equinox the story began. This event, he
finds, was not later than 3000 B.C., and concludes that
the creation legends are, in part at least, as old as that
(Kosmologie, S. 309-320).
A tradition which was current among the inhabitants
v of the Tigris and lower Euphrates valleys for several
thousand years would be known and might perhaps be
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE 7
entertained by people who had been brought under the
influence of Babylonian culture. Our main interest in
the Babylonian tale centres in its possible afiSliation
with other cosmogonies, especially with the Hebrew ac-
count of creation. Greater or less diflferences develop
themselves in a tradition in the ordinary course of trans-
mission, a fact which is abundantly exemplified by the
variations of the Babylonian legend in Babylonia itself.
It is not surprising, therefore, that even on the assump-7
tion of common origin, in the Assyro-Babylonian and
Hebrew traditions of creation, after their subjection
to diverse conditions, diflferences obtrude themselves.
There is literary unlikeness. The Babylonian story
knows nothing of a division into days (see Presbjrterian
Review, vol. x., 670 seq.) ; whereas the Hebrew account
is distributed within a framework of six days. The Baby-
lonian tale, moreover, not only encumbers the plain nar-
rative of creation with an account of the choice and ex-
altation of a demiurge and of his preparation for the
mission, but it is, to say the least, highly figurative
and to the last degree anthropomorphic; the Hebrew
story, on the other hand, is the sober recital in simple,
yet stately prose of the impressive tradition concerning •
the development of the ordered universe from chaos. In
addition to the marked literary contrasts there is a pro-
found diflference in conception. The Babylonian stories
taken together describe the primeval waters as sponta-
neously generative ; the Hebrew account represents the
material of the universe as lying waste and lifeless, and
as not assuming order or becoming productive of life un-
til the going forth of the divine command. These diver-
gent views are allied with the diflferent theistic concep-
tions of the two peoples. On this subject the fragments
of Berosus' narrative throw no light. He is describing
the origin of the ordered universe and assumes the ex-
8 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TBADITION
istence of the gods, however he may have treated of
them in his complete history, mentioniiig them only
casually in connection with their respective activities in
the work of creation. The cuneiform story goes back to
a time when the gods did not exist. It depicts the pri-
meval chaos of waters and proceeds to state, without de-
termining the manner of origination, that the gods came
into being in successive periods of long duration and in
the order assigned by Damascius. The tradition as re-
ported by the latter ascribes a material origin to the
gods ; the primeval waters producing among others an
early pair of deities, from which the other gods were de-
scended by successive generations — a conception which
is, perhaps, allied to the Phoenician doctrine that out of
the material of the universe were evolved sun, moon,
stars and constellations which eventually arrived at con-
sciousness and were called the watchers of heaven. In
the Hebrew records, however, a diflferent theistic doctrine
prevails. God is the creator of the heavens and the
earth, the bringer into existence of that which did not
previously exist. Before the mountains were brought
forth, or ever he had formed the earth and the world,
• even from everlasting to everlasting he is God. He was
from the beginning or ever the earth was, when there
were no depths, no t'homoth, no ti'amati (Prov. viii
22-24).
But this diflference in conceptions, diametrically opposed
though these views be, is explicable without denial of
kinship between the accounts so soon as the divergent
thought of the two peoples is recalled. And two consid-
erations leave no reasonable doubt of a relationship be-
tween the two traditions : first, the ancient common hab-
itat in Babylonia of the two peoples who transmitted
these accounts ; and second, the community of conception,
Hebrews and Babylonians uniting in describing the prim-
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE 9
itive condition of the universe as an abyss of waters
shrouded in darkness and subsequently parted in twain
in order to the formation of heaven and earth. The kin-
ship between the traditions need not be close, but kin-
ship there is.
The question then is, How are these two traditions re-
lated to the original source ? An answer is offered by
the mediation theory, which regards the Babylonian le-
gend as intermediate in time and as forming the connect-
ing link between the primitive story and its assumed He-
brew modification. According to this theory, the early
tradition, ever changing, passed through the elaborate
Babylonian tale and thence into the purified Hebrew
form. The prevalent opinion is expressed by Jensen,
who declares that " the end of the fourth and the frag-
ments of the fifth and seventh (?) tablets, together with
the beginning of the first, quite unquestionably form the
prototype of the biblical legends " (Kosmologie, S. 304).
Notice that, in addition to the opening lines in the
first tablet which depict the primitive condition of the
universe as watery chaos, the part of the Babylonian tale
which is declared to form the prototype of the biblical
story is that portion which is taken up with the descrip-
tion of the work of Marduk as fabricator of the universe
(S. 304-306). The monotheistic revisers, finding nothing
objectionable in the conception, allowed the description
of the universe to remain, which represented it as once
existing in a state of chaotic waters enshrouded in dark-
ness. The story of the origin of the gods, believers in
one god necessarily omitted, and took up the tale again
with the work of the demiurge, Marduk, the light bringer^
whom they simply identified with the one eternal God.
Following the order of the Babylonian narrative, they next
related the separation of the waters and formation of
heaven ; then the gathering of the lower waters into one
10 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
place and the appearance of the dry land ; then, depart-
ing for a moment from the Babylonian order, the cloth-
ing of earth's surface with vegetation ; then, once more like
the Babylonian narrative, the creation of the heavenly
bodies and the calling forth of animate terrestrial beings.
The Babylonian tale was thus, it is claimed, stripped of
all features repugnant to the spirit of monotheism, re-
duced to a fundamental though modified physical concep-
tion, and transfused and glorified with the doctrine of
the eternal God, creator and sovereign of the universe.
This mediation theory, however, rests, we believe, on
a demonstrable error. Contrary to the common assump-
tion, the Hebrew narrative is not chiefly, if it is at all,
reflected in the Marduk section of the cuneiform story,
but in the first tablet and in Damascius. It shines con-
spicuously in the lineage which is assigned to the gods
by these authorities, for the genealogical succession of
the gods is the creational order of the natural objects
which they were supposed to animate. Damascius, it
will be remembered, reports the Babylonian belief that
at first there were two principles of the universe, viz.,
the two primeval waters ; from which, as from parents,
sprang not only Moymis and the gods Lachmu and
Lachamu, but also two others, related as children of the
same generation, Eishar and Anshar, which being in-
terpreted mean the comprehensive heavens above and
the comprehensive earth beneath ; and of these in turn
came a group of three — Anu, heaven, and Illinos, earth's
surface, and Ea, the terrestrial waters ; and the son of
the latter, so called because rising daily from that god's
abode, the ocean, was Bel [Marduk], the sun, whom the
Babylonians say is the demiurge. Evidently if for these
divinities there be substituted the natural objects which
the divine names signify, an orderly statement is ren-
dered, like that in the book of Genesis, of the physical
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE 11
development of the universe. A similar doctrine per-
meates the native literature. According to the monu-
ments Gur, i.e. Apsu, the primeval ocean, was "the
mother, the bearer of heaven and earth " (II R., 54, 18e ;
ASKT., 76, 15/16), " the mother of Anu and the gods "
(Ancient History from the Monuments : Babylonia, p.
66, note ; RP., vol. ix., 146, 64, note). Of these Anu, Bel,
i.e. mil or "IXKivo^, and Ea constituted a triad, the su-
preme one in the Assyrian pantheon. And of Ea and
his consort Da ukina, i.e. Dauke (II R., 55, 53d), ** the
king and queen of the watery deep " (II R., 55, 24c.d.),
was born Marduk (II R., 55, 64d).
The account as transmitted by the first tablet does
not expressly publish the descent of the gods from the
primeval waters, as does Damascius, though traces of
a traditional genealogy are contained in the later tablets
of the series in allusions to the gods as the fathers or
ancestors of Marduk. It does, however, purport to give
the chronological order in which the gods came into ex-
istence. It pictures a primitive chaos of waters, and
then proceeds to relate the origin of the deities ; teaches,
like Damascius, that Lachmu and Lachamu, whoever
they may have been and who later became involved with
Tiamat, came into existence and grew up ; that Anshar
and Kishar — in other words that heaven and earth in the
widest meaning of these terms, namely, all above and all
below — were formed ; that after a long period Anu, the
spirit of the heavens proper, and Bel, the surface of the
earth, and Ea, the terrestrial waters, were made.^ Here
again the substitution for the gods of the natural ob-
jects which their names signify and which they were be-
lieved to animate yields a correct chronological account
of the physical development of the universe. In the
light of this evidence, the story which the tablets, espe-
* LaAt two names restored from context and Damascius.
12 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
cially in their opening sentences, tell, and which they re-
veal later between the lines, is not in its germ a sun
myth — although it has unfolded into or been engrafted
on a sun myth (cp. Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p.
393) — but it is the deformed outgrowth of an earlier phy-
sical doctrine of the origin of the universe.
It may be read later between the lines of the Marduk
section, we say ; for it is legible in Marduk's inferior rank
and in the actual place assigned to him in the pantheon.
The Babylonian religion was a nature worship according
to which natural objects were regarded as animated.
Yet Marduk, the rising sun, who in earliest times was
represented as destroyer of Tiamat, framer of heaven
and earth and seas, and constructor of the abodes of the
gods, was not originally worshipped as father of the gods,
the first in order of time, the head of the pantheon, but
as a subordinate deity ; and when at a late period he
was admitted into the number of the great gods, it was
as occupant of a humble position. To this fact the story
of creation as told by the tablets — and in a part which
is traceable to the earliest times — bears witness. The
king of the gods is Anshar ; he sends Anu to subdue
Tiamat, and on Ann's failure employs Ea ; and not until
the god of terrestrial waters proves unable does Anshar
turn to Marduk as a last resort. It is only after this
commission has been announced that Marduk is led into
the princely chamber by the gods, who are called his an-
cestors, and there endued with might and invested with
dominion over the universe (iv. 14). This peculiarity
is not accidental, but significant. The explanation is
found in the underlying cosmological theory : Marduk's
birth immediately followed that of the triad of deities,
Anu (heaven), Bel (earth), and Ea (house of terrestrial
water). The universe had in part developed before
Mjirduk came into being ; his rank coincides with his
THE CREATIOIT OF THE UNIVERSE 13
place in unfolding cosmos, and the order in which the
gods one after another are sent forth to battle, the reli-
ance which is placed in Marduk's predecessors before he
is appealed to for help, likewise correspond broadly to
the chronological succession of the gods as determined
by the creative order of the natural objects which they
represent. Thus even the Marduk section of the crea-
tion story, notwithstanding its representation of that god
as a maker of heaven and earth, seems in reality to pre-
suppose a somewhat advanced stage in the formation of
the universe before his offices are called into requisition.
With this elucidation in mind, the cuneiform story as\
a whole should be reviewed. The tale begins with the
statement that at first the primeval waters lay mingled
together, and eventually became the begetter and bearer
of heaven and earth. Deities came into existence : first
Lachmu and Lachamu ; then, after a considerable peri-
od, all above and all below ; after lapse of other years,
heaven, earth's surface, and terrestrial waters ; finally,
Marduk, the rising sun.* But Tiamat, the watery abyss,
resisted the unfolding order and infringed the divine
command, probably by her continual endeavor to con-
found earth and heaven and sea. The nightly darkness
obscuring the regions of the universe and enveloping all
nature in the primeval shroud, the dense mists reuniting
at times the waters of heaven and earth, continued rains
when the windows of heaven were opened and the foun-
tains of the great deep broken up, which threatened to
deluge the earth and again convert the celestial and ter-
restrial waters into the one vast original ocean, suggested
a possible return to chaos ; yea, told these Babylonians
who believed in the existence of animate beings back of
1 Compare the Phceniclan tradition that the heavenly bodies were spon-
taneonsly developed from the chaotic mass of matter and in process of time
arrived at consciousness.
14 GENRSIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
every natural object, of a determined struggle on the
part of Tiamat to reduce all things to primitive disorder ;
while the black clouds and vapors of fantastic shape, the
angry mutterings of thunder and the fierce tornado
evoked in their superstitious minds the conception of a
brood of horrid creatures, offspring and abettors of Ti-
amat, allied with their cruel progenitress in bitter war-
fare against the established order of the universe. These
foes, which the Babylonians discerned in darkness and
fog and storm, the deity of the comprehensive heavens,
Anshar, attempted in vain to overcome. Ea, lord of
earthly waters, availed still less. Finally Marduk, the
rising sun, was sent. A fearful storm was the result
(Tablet iv., 45 seq.), but the god of the rising sun dis-
pelled the darkness, scattered the hideously shaped
clouds, lifted the vapors in masses on high, subdued the
tempest, reopened the space between heaven and earth,
revealed the blue firmament, cleared a pathway for the
starry host, brought to light the earth and dried its sur-
\ face, awoke animal and vegetable life.
The story in its developed form is an exaltation of the
sun. The events which preceded the sun's appearance
are recognized ; but being apart from the plan are not
dwelt upon. Moreover, in course of time, with the
growth of the mythological conception and the conse-
quent partial concealment of the germ of the tale, there
ultimately developed a story which ascribed to the hero
Marduk results which, even in Babylonian thought, were
in nowise due to the sun's agency (cp. Jensen, Kosmolo-
gie, S. 309).
Compare with this Babylonian story the account which
the Israelites transmitted. A striking feature of the
Hebrew narrative is its symmetry. While by necessity
a natural sequence of events is observed, the principle of
grouping prevails. Creative acts, so distinct as to be in-
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE 15
troduced by the recurring formnla, " God said, Let there
be," and dismissed by the statement, " God saw that it
was good ; " creative acts so diverse as is making from
creating, or as is the gift of life from the mere separa-
tion of the material elements, are in several instances
grouped in one and the same period, as in the first, third,
fifth, and sixth days. Again, the motionless objects are
grouped as the works of the first three days, and the
moving objects — or those which appear to move — the
works of the last three days. Still again, the respective
periods of these two great divisions offset each other :
the creation of light on the first day corresponds to the
making of the heavenly luminaries on the first day of
the second division ; the parting of waters by a firmament
on the second day, to the calling forth of animate beings
in the waters and in front of the firmament on the same
day of the second division ; the appearance of dry land
and of vegetation on the third day, to the land animals
and the appointment of herbs for their food on the third
day of the second division. This distribution of the vari-
ous works of creation is not arbitrary, but logically
determined ; it is based on the relations of these objects
the one to the other, and it exhibits the true character
and progress and purpose of creation.
Of course the conclusion would be unwarranted that
this symmetry is necessarily artificial ; but the theory
that it is the result of intentional arrangement is plausi-
ble and has been adopted and advocated by leading in-
terpreters. If entertained, its bearing upon another
question must not be overlooked. If it be true that the
material has been arranged, it follows that while the
natural sequence of events has in a measure been re-
tained in the narrative, chronology has been subordi-
nated ; it has been either intentionally ignored or at
least only so far regarded as that the works of creation,
16 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
which may haye had ttieir beginning in a prior period,
have been recounted in the order of their "day" or
period of prominence, not in the order of their coming
into existence.
What, then, is meant by the much-discussed days of
the Hebrew tradition; for so far as yet appears they
are peculiar to the Hebrew transmission ? * Under the
teaching of God, they are the accurate and admirable
classification of the works of creation under six divi-
sions ; six distinct groups of deeds followed by cessa-
tion from creative activity, for the end and ideal of crea-
tion had been attained. And in view of the sacredness
which was conventionally attached to the number seven,
even by the authorized teachers of Israel, seven sections
were peculiarly appropriate in a narrative of God's
works. And these sections are called days. It is to be
admitted that these expressions can, on purely linguistic
grounds, be interpreted as ordinary days, which, taken
together, form a week of seven times twenty-four hours.
It is also to be admitted that, on literary grounds, these
terms can be interpreted as days, marked by the alterna-
tion of light and darkness, but not consecutive. The
several days are the respective points of time when God
issued his decrees. No stringent reason compels belief
that this same writer would teach that there were ten
generations and no more from Adam to Noah and from
Shem to Abraham ; and certainly Matthew neither be-
lieved nor would teach that the generations from Abra-
ham to David and from David to the captivity and from
the captivity to Christ were in every case consecutive
and in each group were fourteen and no morfe^ Perhaps
the Hebrew writer is pursuing the same plan when he
describes the six groups of creative deeds as the works
of six several days, and adds thereto the seventh day of
* The Etruscan story is of course not forgotten.
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE 17
diTine rest ; thus making, when taken together, a com-
plete week and a heavenly example to men of labor and
repose. Still again it is to be admitted with Driver,
Delitzsch, and a host of other distinguished scholars,
that "the writer may have consciously used the term
[day] figuratively," for the words day and week were un-
questionably employed by the Hebrews with latitude. It
has, indeed, been argued that the periphrastic division
of the day into two halves bounded by evening and
morning is conclusive proof that an ordinary day of
twenty-four hours is meant (Dillmann) ; but if day is
used figuratively, evening and morning must likewise be,
and accordingly the answer has been well returned that
evening may mean " the time when the Creator brought
his work [temporarily] to a close, and morning the time
when the creative activity began anew " (Delitzsch).
Each period of creative activity was followed by one of
inactivity, corresponding to night when man works not ;
and when creation was complete, when the ideal which
God had set before him had been attained, when all had
been pronounced very good, God entered upon his long
and as yet unended Sabbath of cessation from creative
work, or, as the writer himself significantly phrases it,
from " work which God made in a creative manner."
Three interpretations of the term day are accordingly
in themselves admissible, and we are constrained to join
others in saying with Augustine : " What kind of days
these were it is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible
for us to conceive and how much more to say ! " (De civ.
Dei, xi., 6). A breadth of statement is employed by the
author which is usual with biblical writers when setting
forth the subordinate elements of their doctrine and
which renders the teaching of Scripture broader than
the varying conceptions which man in diflferent ages en-
tertams.
2
18 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
The writer's own conception, not of day, but of the
time occupied in bringing the world into its present con-
dition, may be ascertained, if not with certainty, at least
with probability. The plausibility of the theory that he
subordinates time to arrangement has already been men-
tioned. Add to that the fitting omission of the definite
article from the enumeration of the periods : day one,
day second, day third, day fourth, day fifth, and, to judge
from the versions, day sixth ; leaving the expressions in
themselves indefinite, which is not customary when, as
here, ordinals are used and the days of an ordinary
week-period are numbered (Num. xxix. 17, 20, 23, etc. ;
Neh. viii. [2], 13, 18 ; cp. Num. vii. 12, etc., et pass.).
The method of enumeration employed is suitable for ex-
hibiting a relation between the groups which the writer
would not narrowly define ; and accordingly he speaks of
a second day, a third day, etc. Add further the Semitic
tradition which has been preserved in the Babylonian
version that the successive stages in the development of
the ordered universe occupied long periods of untold
duration, and the presumption becomes strong that the
Hebrew writer likewise conceived of the creation period,
not as seven times twenty-four hours, but as vastly, in-
definitely long.
So much for the style and for the framework of the He-
brew tradition. Now as to its contents. The cosmology
underlying the Hebrew account, apart from its theology,
is that at first there was a chaos : called the earth, be-
cause the heavens had not yet been detached from the
mass, and because it contained all the elements out of
which the universe was formed ; called also the great
deep, or fh8m, because existing in watery or fiuid state.
This mass of material was shrouded in darkness. Then
light was created. All accounts, Babylonian and He-
brew, presuppose the existence of light before the sun.
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE 19
The idea was familiar to the ancients, being found among
the Aryans east and west as well as among the Semites.
The doctrine is true ; the causes were of old at work
which make the light of myriad suns and render our
own orb of day luminous. Then the blue vault called
the firmament parted the primeval waters, dividing the
fluid heavens from the fluid earth. The latter watery
body is next described as undergoing change; it was
separated into seas and dry land, and the land clothed
with verdure. As yet, however, notwithstanding the al-
lusion to vegetation, no mention has been made of the
creation of the sun. In this the Hebrew departs from
the Babylonian order of narration, which tells of the for-
mation of the sun and stars immediately after that of
earth and before any allusion has been made to vegeta-
tion. The explanation may be found either in the au-
thor's intention to teach that vegetation preceded the
sun's formation or at least the sun's appearance through
the mists, or else in his method of grouping already
described. It may be that the author, without intend-
ing to teach the priority of vegetation to the sun's light
and heat, having narrated the gathering together of the
terrestrial waters and the appearance of dry land, wished
to preserve the determined symmetry of his account and
to complete the present picture by telling of the verdure
which forthwith covered the earth, and which in reality
forms one stage with the ground in the earth's develop-
ment. It may be added in passing that perhaps no man
to this day knows whether vegetation delayed until the
sun had thrown oflf the planets which are within the
earth's orbit and had assumed its present dimensions,
or whether herbage appeared long before. Proceeding
now to the movable bodies, the Hebrew narrator first
describes those which pass in solemn procession across
the sky — the sun, moon, and stars. Then he depicts as
20 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
a succeeding day the time when fish swarmed in the
waters, and fowl flew in the heaven, when the lower ani-
mals reached great development and dominated the earth.
He pictures next the day of the land animals, made of
the earth, higher in order of being than fish or fowl, at-
taining to prominence and dominion after the reign of
aquatic and aerial animals, and culminating in man,
created in the same manner as were they, ruling at the
same time with them on earth, but made in the divine
image and commissioned to subdue the earth to himself
and reign supreme among its creatures.
The outcroppings of the Semitic tradition of the crea-
tion of the world, as they come to light on the Tigris and
the lower Euphrates and in Palestine, reveal a diverging
trend in southern Mesopotamia. The original tradition,
discoverable even beneath the distortions to which it
was subjected by polytheism, represented a primitive
condition of the universe consisting of chaotic waters
enveloped in darkness ; a separation of these so-called
waters into two divisions, the great abov^ and the great
beneath ; the clear distinction, later, of these into heaven
above and land and ocean beneath. Under the influence
of animistic nature worship, however, this fundamental
physical doctrine was perverted. The divisions of the
universe were severally assigned a spirit and deified ;
consequently the original teaching of the orderly de-
velopment of the material universe became in allegory
the genealogy of the gods. At the point where the ap-
pearance of the sun was noted, the tradition diverged
still more. The worshippers of the one true God, pre-
serving both the physical doctrine and the sublime truth
behind it, told of the appearance, at God's command,
of sun, moon, and stars, of animate beings in sea and
air, of beasts on earth and of man in the divine image.
The Assyro-Babylonian adorers of nature, on the other
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE 21
hand, worshipping the sun, hail him as o&pring of
ocean's lord and lady, because going forth daily from the
sea, laud him as the restorer and preserver of order and
the awakener of life ; yea, they exalt him at length to the
rank of creator, and in their fervor ascribe to him the
completion of the universe. The physical doctrine, which
is the substratum of the tradition, has been preserved in
the Hebrew transmission. The deification of nature and
the glorification of the sun are polytheistic amplifica-
tions. The Hebrew account is the intentional perpetua-
tion of the basal doctrine of the origin of the universe.
And now allow the eye to sweep in rapid survey over
the literature of antiquity. Cosmological theories enter-
tained by the peoples who were akin or neighbor or by
commerce and conquest bound to the Babylonians, As-
syrians, and Hebrews come to light. In Etruria and
Greece, in Persia, India, Egypt, and Phoenicia cosmogo-
nies are found which bear resemblances to the Semitic
tradition ; concurring with it not in the accidents of
literary form and mythological fancies, but in the es-
sential of physical doctrine. For the most part they, too,
like the Babylonian tale, find a place for the sun and ex-
aggerate his agency ; and yet not one is a sun myth.
The exact relationship of these cosmogonies to the Semit-
ic tradition cannot as yet be finally determined ; but ail
confirmation which, with increasing knowledge of ancient
thought, shall accrue that these teachings have a com-
mon origin with the Babylonian and Hebrew transmis-
sion is additional proof that the genealogy of the gods is
a distortion and the sun myth an amplification of the
primitive tradition.
These national traditions show more. They show that
the original doctrine was never wholly lost sight of by
mankind at large. It was an influential presence in hu-
man thought. But especially among the ancient Baby-
22 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
lonians was the primitive tradition apprehended despite
its perversion; for the same agencies which distorted
worked also to preserve it. The early doctrine of the
more or less vital relation between the gods and the
natural objects whose names they bore and which they
inhabited, a doctrine which had converted the account of
the physical development of the universe into the genea-
logical descent of the gods, must act in the opposite di-
rection ; the genealogy of the gods must be ever readily
reconvertible into the generations of the heavens and the
earth. Whenever, then, this primitive, ever-discernible,
and imperishable teaching of the origin of the universe
was held by monotheists, it was formulated essentially
as is the doctrine in the opening chapter of the book of
Genesis.
n
THE SABBATH
Eighteen years ago Mr. Fox Talbot, one of the first
successful translators of the Assyrian inscriptions, an-
nounced to the public his opinion that in the fifth tablet
of the creation series the Babylonians clearly affirmed
" the origin of the Sabbath " to have been " coeval T\dth
creation." He found on that tablet these remarkable
lines :
** Every month without fail he [i,e. God] made holy assembly-
davs.
On the seventh day he appointed a holy day
And to cease from all business he commanded."
(RP., vol. ix., 117, 118; cp. TSBA., vol. v., 428.)
Increased knowledge of the Assyrian vocabulary has,
however, made it certain that the version given by the
eminent translator is inaccurate at crucial points. The
word agHf, which he boldly guessed to mean holy assem-
bly-day (thinking of the Hebrew chag), is .now known to
signify a crown or, as Jensen prefers to describe it, a royal
cap ; and the passage proves to be a description, not of
the institution of the Sabbath, but of the moon's changes.
A translation which is nearer to the sense of the original
is :
" He caused the moon to shine forth, he subjected the night to it.
He made it known as an object of the night. In order to make
known the days
Every month without fail mark off [time (?)] with the crown ;
24 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
At the beginning of the month, on rising at eveDing,
Horns thou dost show in order to make known the heaven,
On the seventh day the crown "
About the time that this text came to light, a discov-
ery was made which has awakened wide interest. The
phrase " day of rest of heart," as the words have been
translated, was found in an Assyrian vocabulary and by
its side its synonym was given as Shabcdtu, This fact nat-
urally attracted attention. But it was early abused.
Without any warrant save that of plausibility to justify
the procedure, it was combined with a peculiar feature
of a ritualistic calendar, which is presently to be men-
tioned, and the announcement was published — ^not as a
conjecture, but as a fact — that the word Sabbath was
known to the Assyrians, was the name given to the sev-
enth, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-
eighth day of each month, and was " explained as * a day
of rest for the heart'" (Sayce, Academy, Nov., 1875, p.
554, Babylonian Literature, p. 55; Schrader, KAT^.,
S. 18 ff. ; Tiele, Babylonisch-assyrische Geschichte, S.
550). But these statements are bold assumptions. The
pronunciation of the word as SJiabattu is not quite cer-
tain. The signs which compose it may be so read ; but
they may likewise be pronounced Shahetu or Shamittu or
Shapattu. One reading is as likely as another. There
is no inherent reason for a preference. Shabattu has
been adopted solely because it is a suitable synonym of
the phrase " day of rest of heart." But here, again, a
question must be raised. The phrase nuch libbiy which
has been translated " rest of heart," is of frequent occur-
rence in Assyrian literature in this form or a variation of
it, being employed to signify the appeasing of the heart
of the gods. This meaning must be retained in the pas-
sage under discussion unless other facts come to light
(cp. Jensen, ZA, vol. iv., 274). The utmost that this
THE SABBATH 25
celebrated line yields is that a day of propitiation was
possibly called Sabbath. From anght that appears, it
was neither a day of rest nor the reeurring seventh day,
but any season devoted to appeasing an angry god.
Reference has been made to a ritualistic calendar. The
first tablet of the kind was discovered in the year 1869
by that enthusiastic Assyriologist of former days, Mr.
George Smith, while at work upon the heap of miscel-
laneous fragments of clay and stone tablets which had
come into possession of the British Museum (Assyrian
Discoveries, p. 12). It was a religious calendar for the
intercalary month of second Elul, and indicated for each
day in succession the deity of the day, the festival to be
celebrated, the offerings to be made, and occasionally the
proper deportment of men. But these regulations were
not peculiar to intercalary Elul. In their main provi-
sions they were common to all the months of the year.
Numerous similar tablets have come to light which show
that the corresponding days of the various months were
distinguished by the same festivals, the same commands,
and the same prohibitions.
The feature which lends to these calendai*s their great
interest is the special notice taken of the recurring
seventh day. On the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth,
twenty-first, and twenty-eighth day of each month certain
acts are forbidden. The prohibitions are the same for
each of these days. The law was this :
^ ■
" The seventh day, a festival of the god Marduk and the god-
dess Zarpanitn.^ A propitious day. [Nevertheless] an unlucky
day : the shepherd of many nations shall not eat meat ' which has
been cooked on the fire . . . , the raiment of his body he
shall not change, nor put on clean clothing, nor make a libation ;
the king shall not ride in his chariot nor speak as a ruler ; the
1 The deities are different on each of the recurring seventh days.
• " Anything," nineteenth day.
26 ' GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
priest shall not carry on a conversation in a secret place ; the seer
shall not lay his hand on the sick, nor stretch it forth to call
down a curse. At night * in the presence of god Mardnk and god-
dess Ishtar the king shall make his offering, pour out his liba-
tion ; the lifting np of his hands nnto god will be acceptable."
How striking is the resemblance to the Jewish Sab-
bath ! The shepherd of many nations — the proud title
in Babylonia and Assyria of the graod monarch who
swayed his sceptre over a vast empire of mixed and sub-
jugated peoples — the shepherd of many nations is warned
not to eat cooked meat on the recurring seventh day ;
and it was a statute in Israel that the people should
neither bake, nor seethe, nor kindle a fire throughout
their habitations on the Sabbath, and the man who
gathered sticks in the wilderness on that day was stoned
(Ex. xvi. 23; xxxv. 3 ; Num. xv. 32-36). The Assyrian
king is warned not to ride in his chariot on the seventh
day, and the Jews restricted the distance that might be
travelled on that day. The king is warned not to speak
as a ruler, which seems to mean that he must neither
legislate nor judge ; and according to the rabbis cases at
law might not be tried on the Sabbath, save when the
offence was against religion. In Assyria the seer must
not apply his hand to the sick ; and the scribes and
Pharisees foimd fault with Jesus of Nazareth because he
healed the sick on the Sabbath day.
These common points, however, prove nothing. Not-
withstanding them, the Hebrew law may possibly have
no connection with the precepts of this particular As-
syrian ritual. The resemblance is indeed great, but the
contrasts are greater. The day set apart was not the
same in both countries, the controlling idea of the day
was different and the practice was different.
1. There was a difference as to the day. In Assyria
* "In the morning," twenty-first day.
THE SABBATH 27
significance attached to that day of the month which was
seven or its multiple. Among the Israelites it was inde-
pendent of the day of the month, being the recurring
seventh day in unbroken succession throughout the
year.^ In other words, among the Assyrians it was al-
ways the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first
and twenty-eighth days of the month which were marked
by these regulations, while the Hebrew Sabbath might
fall on any day of the month. The difference as to the
day is, it is true, of minor importance ; for it is conceiv-
able that it arose by simple substitution, parallel to the
historic change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the
first day of the week : nevertheless the difference is char-
acteristic and may be profoundly significant.
2. Again, a different conception of the day prevailed
in the two countries. Every feature of the Jewish ob-
servance, even the minutest, both before the period of
Babylonian influence and after the exile, is based on the
theory that the Sabbath is a day of rest from labor.
There was a deeper thought. The Creator rested on the
seventh day and in his benevolence blessed it and hal-
lowed it that all his creatures might enjoy like rest.
The Sabbath should be a benediction to man's physical
being and woo his soul to greater love for God.
This pure and sublime truth stands in marked con-
trast to the Assyrian theory. In Assyria the recurring
seventh day of the month was not a sacred day, but
merely an unlucky day. The prohibitions which are
found in the ritual are not laws, but warnings. Man is
not forbidden, but cautioned. The deeds prohibited are
not wrong, but dangerous. It is unlucky for the king to
1 The law speaks of a period of six days intervening between the Sabbaths.
The fifty days which elapsed between the offering of the sheaf of the first
fruits and Pentecost included the ends of two months and yet including the
next moming numbered seven weeks.
28 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
ride in his chariot on that day, unlucky for the priest to
converse in private, unlucky for the seer to stretch forth
his hand to touch the sick.
What gave to the day this dismal character? XJn-
propitiousness was no uncommon characteristic of times
and seasons in Assyria. The Assyrians regarded days
when it was inauspicious to eat fish, dangerous to pay
money, unfortunate to ride in a ship, lucky to kill a
snake. They noted and catalogued the months as lucky
or unlucky for going to camp or engaging in battle (HI
E., 52). They watched the varying aspects of the moon
because they thought that they discerned portents of
good or evil in lunar phenomena. The sole peculiarity
of the calendar under consideration is that unlucky acts
are noted for the recurring seventh and the nineteenth
day of the month.
The phasing of the moon has properly been thought
of as the possible explanation for the separation of these
days from all others. The radiant orb of night has
served many peoples as a heavenly clock, measuring oflf
the month and dividing it into seven-day periods. But
in the ritualistic calendar the months are not lunar, but
contain thirty days ; and the unlucky days fall on the
same date every month. The ill-fated day might fairly
coincide with the phases of the moon in Nisan ; but the
divergence between the recurring seventh day and the
moon's quarter would be quite apparent to the eye in
the second month, and the variation would increase
as the months rolled On. The nineteenth day of the
month, too, was regarded with the same superstitious
awe as the recurring seventh day. There is no possible
relation between the nineteenth day of the month and
the quartering of the moon.
A similar argument opposes the theory that, a week of
seven days having been adopted because of the seven
THE SABBATH 29
great luminaries in the heavens, the baleful character
of the seventh day was due to its association with the
gloomy planet Saturn. The theory falls short of an ex-
planation ; for it, too, fails to account for the like regard
being paid to the nineteenth day of the month as to the
recurring seventh.
The evidence at present available indicates that the
thought uppermost in man's mind when these ritualistic
tablets took final form was the dread with which the
number seven was invested. The feeling of awe which
was associated with it accounts for the separation not
only of the recurring seventh day of the month, but also
of the nineteenth day, the seventh seventh from the be-
ginning of the preceding month (Boscawen). By this
means they apologized in a measure for the slight put
upon the recurring seventh when the twenty-ninth and
thii-tieth days were left out of the calculation.
3. The day was differently observed by the two peo-
ples. The execution of the offender in the wilderness,
the song for the Sabbath day, promises and threats of
prophets, city gates closed and traffic stopped, towns
preferring capture and armies submitting to massacre
rather than engage even in defensive warfare on the Sab-
bath, tell how Israel kept the appointed day of rest. A
far different state of things prevailed on the Tigris. The
Assyrians and Babylonians did not keep the unlucky
seventh day as a national Sabbath. It was not kept by
the people as a day of rest. Armies marched forth to be-
gin a campaign and war was waged on that day (III E., 8,
78 ; Babylonian Chronicle, col. iii., 3). Numerous dated
tablets bear unintentional testimony that barter and trade
went on as usual ; that the formalities of sale, the assem-
bling of witnesses, and the signing of documents pro-
ceeded without interruption ; that the laborious work of
engraving inscriptions had no cessation. One copy of
30 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
the annals of Ashurbanipal, filling ten long columns, is,
in whole or in part, the work of the twenty-eighth day of
EM (III E., 26, 122). There is no truth in the assertions
that the calendar described "Sabbaths on which no
work was allowed to be done" and that these days
" were kept like the Jewish Sabbath " (Smith, Chaldean
Account of Genesis, p. 89 ; Sayce, Ancient Empires, p.
171). Without doubt the calendar must be understood
literally ; the recurring seventh day was unlucky, not for
the people at large, but for the king, the priest and the
seer, and for the specified acts only.*
The differences in the day set apart, in the theory and
in the practice, are so marked as to raise a doubt whether
the unlucky day of this Assyrian ritual had any connec-
tion whatsoever with the Hebrew Sabbath. Francis
Brown questions, yet rather favors, the theory of some
historical connection (Presbyterian Review, vol. iii., p.
688 seq.). Jensen denies any direct connection (S. S.
Times, 1892, p. 35 seq.). Final decision may be post-
poned. Unquestionably the Assyrian ritual does not
represent the Sabbath of Israel ; and yet it may have a
common origin. It may be the degenerate relic of a
better law. The prohibition of secular work may have
once been attached to the day, but been gradually ignored,
as the fourth commandment has been in parts of Chris-
tendom and only a superstitious expectation of fatality
as attendant upon certain deeds on that day left to tell
of the nobler past. Especially may this be true, if traces
of a conception of the seventh day as auspicious or sab-
batic can be found in the older Babylonian literature.
The theory that in early ages secular work was generally
proscribed on the seventh day would at any rate account
for both the Assyrian calendar and the Sinaitic legislation.
1 It is noteworthy as a commentary on Babylonian custom that the children
of Israel brought back habits of seventh-day labor from the captivity.
THE SABBATH 31
Thus far investigation has done little but clear away
the fogs in which the question has unfortunately been
allowed to become involved. Several facts, important be-
cause of their bearing upon the question of the origin
and early observance of the Sabbath, may now, it is
hoped, be looked at with unobscured vision. One of
these is that a seven-day period was a measure of time
in vogue among the Semites in remote ages. Not that
there is absolute proof of a week in our sense of the
term, universally observed, ever sharply defined, one
following another in a series in uninterrupted succession
throughout the year, a little era by which all people
reckon, and within whose bounds they feel themselves
living ; but only that a period of seven days as a division
of time had been thrust on man's notice and kept before
his mind by nature or revelation or both, and had found
employment in daily life.* The Hebrews preserved the
tradition that the birds which Noah sent forth from the
ark were despatched at intervals of seven days. The
Arameans and Philistines had certain marriage obser-
vances which lasted seven days (Gen. xxix. 27, 28 ; Judg.
xiv. 12, 17). According to the Babylonian story of the
flood, the storm raged six days and six nights and ceased
on the seventh day, making a week in all, and the ark
lay stranded on the mountain an equal period before
man ventured to disembark. Gudea, who was a prince of
Lagash long before the days of Moses, celebrated a fes-
tival of seven days' duration on the completion of a
temple. In the tale of Adapa, son of Ea, a legend which
antedates the fifteenth century before Christ, the south
wind is said to have ceased to blow for seven days. The
week with a conventional beginning which all men reck-
oned as first day is, of course, not intended in every
case. The week which was fulfilled for Leah began on
the day of her marriage. The six days and seven nights
32 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
of Izdubar's sleep commenced when the stupor over-
powered him. The six days and seven nights of
Eabani's association with his new companion began
when the acquaintance was formed on the second day of
waiting by the drinking-place. But these passages show
that the seven-day period was a recognized standard,
that it was employed for the varied purposes of ordi-
nary life, that it had come to be denoted by the peculiar
formula six days q,nd seven nights (cp. l^lltD), that it was
used loosely like our week for seven successive days
irrespective of the starting-point; and it is noticeable
that the periods are consecutive in the account of the
flood when Noah sends forth the birds at regular inter-
vals of seven days, and perhaps also in the Babylonian
narrative, where the seven days of storm and fairing
weather are followed by seven days during which the
ship lies aground on the mountain. The duration of
Noah's confinement in the ark, from the day of his en-
trance to that of his release, is measurable by consecu-
tive weeks, fifty-three in all ; and with the exception of
the stranding of the drifting ark, which may be regarded
as an accident of nature, the events that are dated by the
day of the month fall on the first or seventh day of these
consecutive weeks ; and it will be shown in connec-
tion with the chronology of the flood that perhaps even
the forty days of rain, and again of waiting after the
appearance of the mountain-tops, are bounded by the
first and seventh days of these consecutive seven-day
periods.
What gave rise to this reckoning by a seven-day pe-
riod ? Not improbably the phasing moon had some in-
fluence. Men relied upon that occurrence in remotest
antiquity for the measurement of time ; for the moon
marked oflf months and divided them approximately into
seven-day periods with unfailing regularity (Lotz, de
THE SABBATH 33
historia Sabbati, p. 37 ; Kobertson Smith, Encyc. Brit.,
Art. Sabbath). The phenomenon is referred to in the
passage abeady quoted from the Creation tablets.
**In order to make known the days
Every month without fail mark off [time (?)] with the crown ;
At the beginning of the month, on rising at night,
Horns dost thou show in order to make known the heaven.
On the seventh day the crown "
With these lines the words of Genesis may not inaptly
be compared as an expression of man's habit of depend-
ing on the heavenly bodies in general to measure time
for him, and of his apprehension that these bodies were
intended by the Creator to serve this purpose. "Let
there be lights in the firmament of heaven . . . and
let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and
years."
But the moon's changes do not account for the auspi-
cious and sacred character of the seventh day, nor does
the additional fact that among the stars seven luminaries
were conspicuous for their size and their movement
among the heavenly host. Thirty never became a sacred
number, although the moon was constantly symbolized
by that number in documents, accomplished its limations
in that number of days, and, as heaven's indicator, meas-
ured time in periods of thirty days ; nor did three hun-
dred and sixty-five become a heavenly number, although
the sun-god completed his course in so many days, and
accurately marked oflf the natural year. It seems to
have been other associations connected with the number
seven that rendered the seventh day and the seventh
seventh day separate from all others in the Assyrian
ritual, and that made the seventh day and the seventh
month, perhaps, and the seventh year notable periods in
Israel.
3
34 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
What other associations were there? Perhaps indi-
cations may be found in the ancient writings. Let us
see.
According to the Babylonian narrative the flood, the
fearful work of the gods, ceased on the seventh day.
This fact is noteworthy because of its possible signifi-
cance. Deity is at rest and man is relieved on the sev-
enth day (Jensen).^ But more than this. The Hebrew
narrative, the strangely variant account given by Jose-
phus, and the cuneiform story preserve, each in its own
way, the recollection that the release from the ark and
the sacrifice which the saved oflfered took place on a
seventh day ; the exit, according to the Hebrew narra-
tive, being authorized by God on a seventh day long
after the earth was dry. These facts also may be signifi-
cant. Gracious relief is afforded to man by heaven, for
which a thank-offering is made; afforded on the sev-
enth day and, perhaps, as may appear later, expected to
be afforded on that day. But yet more. In the Hebrew
account of creation, in the periodic cessation of the
manna, and in the law of the Sabbath the outstanding
features are likewise divine rest and human relief on the
recurring seventh day. Similar thoughts reappear in
the feast on the first day of the seventh month, with its
solemn rest and the special offering for a sweet savor
unto the Lord (Lev. xxiii. 24, 25 ; Num. xxix. 1) ; in the
consecration of the seventh year that the land might rest
unto the Lord and recover its strength (Ex. xxiii. 11 ; Lev.
XXV. 4) ; in the release of the seventh year which allowed
the Hebrew bondman after six years of service to go forth
free (Ex. xxi. 2 ; Deut. xv. 12 seq.) ; and in the jubilee,
when, "seven times seven years" having been completed,
liberty was proclaimed throughout the land (Lev. xxv. 8
> Sach may also be the meaning of the Hebrew narrative. *See chapter on
the flood.
THE SABBATH 36
seq.). Each recurring seventh period of time is a season
of rest, liberty, and joy. What do these things mean ?
An origin is needed for the belief that the seventh por-
tion of time was a season of rest and good-will to man ;
a heavenly example calling for imitation on earth.
i
in
THE CREATION OF MAN
Practically the universal belief of antiquity in regard
to man's origin was that he was made of earth. It could
not be otherwise, for the truth was evident to him that
had eyes to see. Man's body moulders to dust after death.
Plainly it is made of earth. The tales which would tell
the story of man's creation diflfer, indeed, but the differ-
ence between the accounts which assume the intervention
of a creator lies in the method of divine procedure.
In a review of the Semitic tradition of this event three
narratives have special importance.
The Babylonian priest Berosus relates, in a passage al-
ready quoted, that Bel removed his head and other gods
(or god) mixed the outflowing blood with earth and formed
men ; wherefore they are intelligent and partake of di-
vine thought. Who the unnamed assistant of Bel was is
not known. It has been conjectured that the deity was a
goddess, namely Aruru, of whom it is related that, at a
comparatively late date in human history, when a being
was needed to counteract the influence of Izdubar, she
washed her hands, plucked off clay, cast it to the ground,
and made Eabani. This conjecture haft received decided
confirmation from a passage in the so-called " Non-Semit-
ic Version of the Creation Story " where the two lines
occur :
''Bel made mankind,
Arum had made the seed of mankind with him." *
1 The attempt to identify the god Ea with the nameless assistant of Bel is a
failure so far as it is based on the claim that Ea *■'' bears among other signifi-
THE CREATION OP MAN 37
The second of the three narratives to which attention
is called comes from the Nile country. It is said to have
been "of comparatively recent growth" (Wilkinson,
Ancient Egyptians, vol. i., 1 ; cp. Brugsch, Steininschrift
nnd Bibelwort, S. 14). It appears in its most elabo-
rate form in a prayer and not in a formal account of the
creation of man. A king is represented as approaching
Chnum, the creator, and addressing the god thus : " I
draw nigh to thee, holy architect, creator of the gods,
builder of the egg, peerless one. At thy will the potter's
wheel was brought unto thee, and on it thou didst model
gods and men. Thou art the great, exalted god who in
the beginning first formed this world (Brugsch, ibid., S.
15). The words of another inscription are more like the
Hebrew transmission : " The great living god, who
formed man and breathed the breath of life into his
nose " (ibid., 16).
The third accoimt has been transmitted by the He-
brews. " The Lord God formed man out of the dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, and man became a living soul."
oant names that of a potter ^* (Jensen, Kosmologie, S. 293). A better statement
of the case is that the ideograms for god-potter are explained as a title of the
god Ea. The name does not indicate that Ea did the work of a potter, but
that he was the patron of the craft. It does not refer to Ea as being a potter,
but as being god of the potter (U R , 58, No. 5, 57b, o. ). The title falls to Ea
because he is the god of wisdom, who knows everything and presides over
every department of skill. On the tablet alluded to, after a series of titles re-
ferring to the dominion of Ea as **god of heaven and earth,** *^ god of the
creation," ^^ god of the universe," there follows '*god of wisdom." Because
god of wisdom he is, as is particularized in the succeeding lines,
god-potter := god Ea [as god] of the potter.
• god-smith = " " '' " " " smith,
god-singer — " " ** " " " dnger.
god-lord-ships — " " ** " '" " sailor.
These titles do not mean that Ea wrought as a potter and as a blacksmith
and as a sailor. They simply mean that Ea was the divine source of all skill
and patron of the arts. The title god-potter therefore cannot be adduced aa
proof that the god who assisted Marduk in the creation of man was Ea.
38 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
Are these gross tales from Babylonia and Egypt to
serve as commentaries on the Hebrew narrative, show-
ing that the conception of the Hebrew writer was gross
also ; or does the Hebrew account represent a pure con-
ception which underlies the other two narratives? Have
Babylonian and Egyptian originals been stripped of
everything repugnant to worshippers of the spiritual
God to yield the Hebrew account, or is it the pure tra-
dition which during transmission by other people became
fantastically elaborated and corrupted ?
To these queries it may be answered :
1. If the Babylonian, Hebrew, and Egyptian narratives
are rooted in one and the same tradition, but in process
of time grew apart, the diflferences are apt to be mainly
growth and the common elements to be the essential and
original or at least early features. Judged thus, the
potter's wheel is an amplification of the original tradi-
tion ; for it is a feature peculiar to the Egyptian version
and is not essential to the process of shaping a human
figure out of clay. For like reasons the diverse state-
ments, on the one hand that the Lord God breathed into
man's nostrils, and on the other that the creating god
mingled his blood with earth in order to form man, have
a common root in the tradition that God gave life to
man. The elements common to the three narratives are
that God formed man from the dust of the earth and
communicated life unto him. This is the germinal tra-
dition, and it has been transmitted by the Hebrew in al-
most bald simplicity.
2. But let us shift the point of view. Apart from com-
parison with each other, considered in themselves indi-
vidually, the Egyptian and Assyrian tales are elabora-
tions. They are complex. The simple always precedes
the complex, the picture must have a motive. The sub-
ject of these narratives is man's origin. Experience or
THE CREATION OF MAN 39
revelation or both had taught that man's body is formed
of the dust of the earth. The truth was also firmly
grasped that God is the creator of all things. The re-
sulting doctrine was that God created man, determining
his shape and figure, forming him of the dust and giving
to him life and breath. This is the basis of the story,
the truth upon which man built. Its formal enunciation
has no fascination, does not charm the imaginative mind,
does not comport with Oriental mode of expression. Not
content with a bald statement of the truth, fervent minds
sought to lend life and color to the picture by portray-
ing details and introducing explanations which a vivid
imagination furnished. Man's body was made of earth.
And the Egyptian worshipper, familiar with the sight
of his fellow-countrymen shaping vessels of Nile clay on
the indispensable wheel, conceives of the creator standing
before the revolving disk and moulding the forms of gods
and men out of earth.^ The speculative Babylonian,
knowing that the life is in the blood, wove into the ac-
cepted doctrine the theory that the creating god removed
his head and had the outflowing blood mixed with earth
in order that the man to be might live. ^ The Hebrew
^ Brugsch^s contention in his work on ^* Religion und Mythologie der alten
Aegypter" is that the Egyptian mythology sprang from simple conceptions
of nature, and that the doctrines were known and taught in practicaUy their
naked simplicity as well as in mythological garb during every period of Egyp-
tian history. As bearing on the actual method which the creator was sup-
posed to have pursued when he formed gods and men, it may be in place to
quote two sentences from Egyptian writings : **• He uttered his voice and the
deities were," ^^ The deities came into existence in accordance with the com-
mand of his mouth " (cited by Brugsch, ib. , S. 98).
* That the story as told by Berosus is a modification of the original tradi-
tion appears also, we think, from the existence of a variant version in Baby-
lonia which might mediate between the Hebrew and Egyptian accounts, did
it not ascribe the work of creation to the sun-god. The tradition referred to
is reflected in these words from a tablet : Marduk " made mankind, the mer-
ciful one with whom is power to make alive. May his word stand firm and
not be forgotten in the mouth of the black-heads [t.e., men] whom his hands
made " (ALi 42, AL^ 80 and AL> 95, 15-18.).
40 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TKADITION
i
historian, controlled by his lofty conception of God, re-
fused to give flight to the imagination or to follow the
grossness of heathen speculation. His account is nearer
to the bald statement of the truth than either of its for-
eign counterparts. It is evidently the original stream of
the tradition, colored — not discolored — by the nature of 1
the channel through which it courses, but possessing
still the character which it had at the fountain-head.
3. Let us shift the point of view again. Analogy is
full of suggestiveness in this matter. Its testimony is
not infallible, but it has value for purposes of corrobo-
ration and indication. It confirms the priority of the
Hebrew form of the tradition; and going further, it
emphasizes the Hebrew narrative as being, not a return
to or towards the original, perhaps, but a survival of it.
The theory of survival or of coexistence side by side
with corrupted forms is demonstrable in the case of the
Hebrew account of creation. It is certain, also, that *
the Hebrew narrative of the flood represents a purer
transmission of the history of that event than do the ex-
tant Babylonian accounts. Analogy, accordingly, while
it does not prove, yet favors the theory that the Hebrew
narrative of man's creation is the stream of the original
tradition, not clarified from impurities which had entered
and rendered it unwholesome, but still flowing with
waters which, though reflecting the color of their channel
and banks, never lost their pristine sweetness and purity.
This cursory review of the three narratives has done
more than bring to light their relation to the primitive
tradition. It has laid bare the foundation of that tradi- «
tion, and has shown that this foundation is not a heathen
myth, but the universally accepted truth ; the simple
truth, afterwards distorted, that God made man's body
of earth and bestowed the gift of life.
The next question that arises is whether the Hebrew
THE CREATION OF MAN 41
narrator meant to describe the method of divine pro-
cedure and to teach that God shaped a human form out
of the dust of the earth and with his mouth breathed
into the nostrils of this clay figure the breath of life ; or
whether, intending to teach, without bringing in or con-
sidering any extraneous ideas, simply that God, in creat-
ing man, determined his form, made him of earthy ma-
terial, and gave him breath and life, used figurative
language which was current coin in the speech of plain
people. For the expressions which are employed to de-
scribe the creation of man, even where they mirror
pictures, were current in the ordinary speech of the peo-
ple. The word yaisar, like its English equivalents " to
form, to fashion," has its special application to the arts.
It can describe the potter shaping the clay, and the
sculptor chiselling the stone, and the smith forging the
iron (Is. xlv. 9 ; xliv. 9, 12). It would be the appro-
priate word to describe the work of moulding a human
figure out of the dust of the ground. But it must not be
forgotten that the word has its general application. With-
out calling up to the mind the image of potter, sculptor,
or smith, it is used to describe the Creator's work who
forms light and creates darkness, who formed summer
and winter, who formeth man in secret before birth, who
fashioneth our imperfect substance before it is brought
forth, who formeth the spirit of man within him (Is. xlv.
7 ; Ps.'lxxiv. 17 ; Jer. i. 5 ; Ps. cxxxix. 16 ; Zech. xii. 1).
It is used also of God in calling a nation into being, as
when he created Jacob and formed Israel (Is. xliii. 1, 21).
It would be a fitting word to employ for the purpose of
describing the spiritual God willing and securing that
man's body be constituted of the dust of the ground.
This last phrase, too, " dust of the ground," must not be
arbitrarily and restrictedly understood ; it means com-
prehensively the material of the universe. God is fur-
42 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
ther said to have breathed into man's nostrils the breath
of life. The language could aptly be used to express the
placing of the lips to the nostrils of clay and breathing
in vital breath until respiration was started and life be-
gan. But here again the use of language must be re-
membered. A mode of statement and a form of expres-
sion occur which, though capable of a realistic literal
interpretation, were current in the speech of ordinary
life in a sense quite devoid of realism. It need scarcely
be said that the words " God breathed into man's nostrils
the breath of life " may mean in Hebrew parlance merely
that God earned the vital breach to be in man's nostrils.
The breathing into the nostrils, moreover, does not neces-
sarily imply the previous existence of an image of clay
with face and nose. Breath is felt in the nostrils and is
a sign of life. Breath in the nostrils is a current figure
for life. " All in whose nostrils was the breath of life "
perished in the flood. Man is ephemeral, his " breath is
in his nostrils." The statement that God breathed into
man's nostrils the breath of life may be the language of
a historian and mean simply that God imparted life to
man. The thought is summed up in the words : " And
man became a living soul." Very different, indeed, as
the sequel shows, from the great whales in the sea and
from the cattle and creeping things and beasts of the
earth, yet, like them, man was a living soul, t.e., animate
(Gen. i. 20, 24 ; 1 Cor. xv. 45).
What, then, is the true interpretation ? What did the
Hebrew narrator himself mean? The question, be it
observed, is not in what literary form the tradition
reached the Hebrew narrator. He may have quoted the
exact words of the Semitic transmission. A few Egyp-
tians may have understood that God placed his lips to
the nostrils of clay. The uninstructed Israelite and the
careless reader may have interpreted the phraseology in
THE CREATION OF MAN 43
gross literalness. But that is not the question. The
question is how the Hebrew narrator, whether he quoted
or rewrote, understood ; and whether he expected and
intended his language to be pushed in the utmost liter-
alness that it will bear, or to be taken in the current
meaning of the terms. Surely he adopted the tradition
in consonance with his conception of God. Literature
which is incorporated with one's creed is adjusted to
one's dominant belief. Even if amid the vicissitudes
of transmission the truth as to man's origin accumulated
about itself the rubbish of pagan speculation and re-
flected it in phraseology and passed thus burdened to
Israel — a theory which, however, as already shown, is
not favored by analogy — yet even so, as soon as the
tradition was appropriated by the Hebrew narrator and
transmitted to his countrymen, it lost for him and for
them every thought and suggestion incompatible with
his and their conception of God. It became naturalized
in Israel. Henceforth it partook of the character of
Israel's faith.
The narrator's conception of Jehovah is exalted and
pure. Always, except occasionally during a theophany —
e.gr., in the garden (ii. 21, 22 (?), and iii. 8) — Jehovah op-
erates in a distinctively divine manner. He accom-
plishes his purposes by act of will and control of nature.
•His outstretched hand, his look are but symbolical ac-
tions or figures of speech, not the efficient cause. They
are anthropomorphisms which were to be expected, and
they in nowise obscure the lofty conception of Jehovah.
Nothing is too hard for him (Gen. xviii. 14), for he is the
God and maker of heaven and earth (Gen. xxiv. 3 ; ii. 4).
When he produces an eflfect in the visible world, he does
it not as a man would. He wills, and the hidden proc-
esses of nature obey. He " planted a garden in Eden,"
not as a man would set out an orchard, but by " making
44 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
trees to grow out of the ground " (Gen. ii. 8, 9). He
remained in heaven, and yet discomfited the Egyptian
host and took off their chariot-wheels (Ex. xiv. 24, 26).
He uttered no word of command even, yet at his will in
an instant the rod of Moses was a serpent and the hand
was like snow with leprosy (Ex. iv. 2-7). He appeared
to Moses and knew him face to face, yet this servant of
God* was profoundly aware that never, even in the most
favored moment, had he beheld the essential glory of
Jehovah, a glory which no man can look upon and live
(Ex. xxxiii. 18-23). Such was the conception of Jehovah
which the Hebrew historian who penned the description
of man's creation out of the dust of the earth entertained
in his mind and displayed in his writings. Surely he
at least did not intend to teach that Jehovah God, when
he formed man, stood as a potter at the wheel and slow-
ly shaped the clay. According to the character ascribed,
Jehovah God produced the result by act of will or by
control of the forces of nature.
The same conception of the divine method of work
was entertained, and the same high standard of inter-
pretation established for the Church by him who placed
the ancient traditions of the creation of the universe in
general and the creation of man in particular side by side.
He relates, indeed, that God made the luminaries, and
put them in the firmament of heaven (Gen. i. 16, 17 ) ;
but he does not mean that God fabricated them in his
workshop and transported them to their places in the
sky. He expressly states that God said : " Let there be
lights in the firmament of heaven, and it was so " (vs.
14, 15 ; cp. also v. 6 with 7, 11 with 12, 20 with 21).
He believed and taught that God's method of work dif-
fers from man's method, not in magnitude and magnifi-
cence merely, but radically in mode of operation. He
spake and it was done, he commanded and it stood fast.
THE CREATION OF MAN 46
he willed and instantly or gradually, mediately or imme-
diately, it finds accomplishment. At creation there was
no man to whom Jehovah God should manifest himself,
no occasion to veil his glory by standing at the potter's
wheel, no reason for working in other than his own sub-
lime, divine manner, no appropriateness in forming
man's body otherwise than by act of will and the exer-
cise of imseen power. He who placed the first and
second chapters of Genesis side by side, penning, it may
be, the very words of the old tradition concerning man's
creation, when judged by his own conception of God,
shared the view, it can scarcely be doubted, and fixed for
the church the interpretation alone valid and authorita-
tive that God formed man's body of earth and inspired it
with life by act of will and by the exercise of unseen
power.
The attitude of Scripture generally to the record of
man's creation deserves passing notice. In writings which
presuppose acquaintance with the second chapter of
Genesis, it is only outside of the Scriptures that the idea
is countenanced or taught that the Creator moulded earth
into a human figure when he would form man. Job and
Elihu have indeed been cited to the contrary. Job says :
" Thine hands have formed me and fashioned me, thou
hast fashioned me as clay ; and wUt thou bring me into
dust again ? " Elihu says : " The inspiration of the Al-
mighty giveth men understanding." " The spirit of God
hath made me and the breath of the Almighty hath given
me life. I also have been nipped ^ from the clay " (x. 8-
12 ; xxxii. 8 ; xxxiii. 4-6). Despite the strong language,
however, language strictly parallel to that used in the
second chapter of Genesis to describe the creation of
man, neither of these men thought that God had moulded
a piece of clay into human shape to form him. Each
1 The same verb is used in the description of the formation of EabanL
46 GENESIS AKD SEMITIC TRADITION
knew that he had been conceived in the womb and bom
(iii. 3, 11 ; X. 18 ; xxxi. 15). It may seem strange, but it
is a fact, that the language which the writer of the second
chapter of Genesis uses to describe man's creation is
found in the mouth of these men when speaking of ordi-
nary human conception and birth. And it may well be
asked whether they did not believe that God in forming
the first man wrought in a manner essentially like that
which he adopts in bringing every man into the world.^
This chapter may find fitting conclusion in the
thoughts regarding man which were shared by the Sem-
ites east and west and reflected in their traditions.
1. The apprehension of God as man's creator. This is
somewhat remarkable ; for in reference to the universe at
large the Babylonian account of creation does not postu-
late the priority of God to matter. The gods of the pan-
theon, which are merely the heavenly bodies and other
natural objects considered animistically, are said to come
into existence. No act of creation is implied. But when
the origin of man is concerned there is ever, as among
the Hebrews, the clear apprehension that he is the creat-
ure and dependent of God.
2. The conception that man was created in the spirit-
ual image of God. The Egyptian worshipper — who per-
haps is not unjustly mentioned in the same breath with
Semites when certain traditions are under discussion —
the Egyptian worshipper thinks of men as formed by the
same divine artificer in the same manner and on the same
wheel with the created gods. The Babylonian scribe ex-
1 Similarly, in a papyms, language much like that nsed to describe the act of
the Egyptian god in creating man is employed of the ordinary divine agency ex-
perienced by every man, where none but a figurative interpretation seems to be
possible. The papyrus dates from the nineteenth dynasty, that of the Phar-
aohs of the oppression and exodus. Phtah is hailed as the fashioner of men,
the former of the gods, the lord of life who opens the throat and affords breath
to the noses of all (Brugsch, Religion u. Mythologie, S. 512 1).
THE CREATION OF MAN 47
pressed the same thought when he records that the
blood of the creatmg god entered into the composition of
men so that they are intelligent and partake of divine
thought. The doctrine is enunciated in the first chapter
of Genesis in the words, " God created man in his own
image, in the likeness of God created he them."
3. The sense of the gulf between man and beast. The
feeling manifests itself in the Babylonian narrative in
the passage already cited. It is embodied in the belief
entertained by the Israelites that at death the spirit of
the beast goeth downward, but the spirit of man goeth
upward. It is beautifully exhibited in the picture of
Adam scanning the animals as they come before him,
distinguishing them by names from each other and from
himself until, having separated and bounded off bird
and beast, he discovers that he is alone. He finds none
of his own kind. He has no spiritual likeness and no
companionship with the beasts about him.
IV
THE HELP MEET FOR MAN
The Semitic tradition of the creation of woman cannot
be studied with satisfaction as yet. The materials are
too scanty, for no parallel to the Hebrew narrative has
been found. Professor Sayce, it is true, believes that
he has discovered a passage in one of the Assyro-Baby-
lonian magical texts which "indicates that a similar
view as to the creation of the woman from the man pre-
vailed in Babylonia to that which we read of in the book
of Genesis. In W. A. I., iv. 1., i. 36, 37, it is said of the
seven evil spirits : ' The woman from the loins of the man
they bring forth,' in conformity with the Semitic belief
which derived the woman from the man " (Hibbert Lect-
ures, 1887, p. 395, note). But suppose that to the words
quoted from the tablet by the distinguished professor
there be added, in his own translation elsewhere given
(ibid., 451, 1. 17, 18), the line that follows in the original.
The statement of the text then is
"The woman from the loins of the man they bring forth,
The child from the knees of the man they cause to issue."
The passage as rendered describes the malicious pranks
of demons who sometimes in their malevolence bring
forth a woman out of the loins of a man, at other times
take a child out of his knee. There is no reference at all
to the creation of woman, no evidence that a similar view
prevailed in Babylonia to that which is taught in the
book of Genesis.
The statement that opinion as to the creation of
THE HELP MEET FOR MAN 49
woman was similar in Babylonia and Palestine is, further-
more, based on a questionable translation. The meaning
of the word rendered " loins " is not certain. The ideo-
gram which corresponds to it in the accompanying Baby-
lonian text represents several vocables, one of which
means " foundation " and another denotes a part of the
body of man and beast. This latter word, which is com-
monly understood to mean loins or buttocks or legs
(AL^ Tfl. 128), may accordingly be a synonym of the word
used in the Assyrian text which is quoted by Professor
Sayce. If so, it may be correct to render the word of the
text either, with Professor Sayce, by loins, or else by but-
tocks or legs. This latitude of meaning should be borne
in mind when the inscription is interpreted and should
prevent the unqualified assertion from being made that
the passage reflects the Hebrew belief.
There is yet other objection to seeing in the passage
a reflection of the Hebrew belief as to the creation of
woman. The text as a whole is not altogether free from
obscurity, but the subject of the story seems to be not
the malicious pranks of demons, but rather the impossi-
bility of escape from their pursuit.^ Quoted more largely,
the passage is as follows :
"From Louse to honse they pass.
As for them, the door does not restrain them,
The lock does not tum them ;
In at the door like a snake they go,
In at the threshold like the wind they blow ;
A woman [who is] at the loins (?) of a man they lead away,
A child [who is] at the knee of a man they draw forth,
A noble [who is] in the house of his kindred they drive out.
They are the scourging voice who behind a man go."
The Hebrew narrative of the provision of a help meet
for man has been held by not a few readers to be a par-
^ The correctness of this latter view is corroborated by IV R., 27, No. 5,
especially 1. 7-13.
4
60 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
able ; as though its author intended to give a poetical or
symbolical exhibition of the truth, rather than to relate
an actual occurrence. There is no inherent objection to
this view. But since some of these early narratives are
clearly the tradition of events and the account of facts,
the narrative of the provision of a companion for man
must be so regarded until, perchance, discovery among
Assyro-Babylonian tablets reveals in unmistakable man-
ner that the narrative is intentionally a poetic composi-
tion.
Regarded, then^ as intended to be the account of an
event, the Hebrew narrative represents the man as sunk
in deep sleep and yet as seeing what occurs during the
stupor, for on awakening he recognizes the woman who is
brought to him as her who had been taken out of him.
The narrative thus portrays man either as lying in a
trance, feeling nothing yet conscious of what was taking
place ; or as beholding a vision, in which the scene was
apparent only, not real.
Strong reasons exist for understanding the intent of
the tradition to be that the action seen during sleep was
real and that woman was formed in the manner de-
scribed. The place assigned to the account suggests
this ; the creation of man has been described, it is ap-
propriate for information to be next given as to woman's
origin. The absence elsewhere of a particular account
of how woman was made is corroboration. It is true
that in the preceding chapter there is the record that
God created man male and female. But that account is
general. Should there not be, as of the creation of man,
so also of the creation of woman, a particular account ?
The superscription of the narrative countenances the
indications which arise from the place occupied by the
account : " It is not good that man should be alone."
These words are more like the introduction to an in-
THE HELP MEET FOR MAN 51
tended account of woman's creation, than merely of her
presentation to man amidst a halo of wholesome truth.
The impression, furthermore, made by the recital upon
readers, learned and unlearned, has, with few exceptions,
ever been that the narrator means to tell how woman
was made. These considerations raise the strong pre-
sumption that in the intent of the tradition the action
seen during sleep was a reality.
Nevertheless the psychological features are distinctly
those of a vision. It was the divine purpose that man
should not be alone ; God determined to make a suitable
help for man. . And this is what took place, according
to the tradition, as the divine purpose was about to be
realized in human experience. When man was created,
he was allowed to come in contact with the beasts and
birds which God had made. As they came under his
observation, he noted their cries and their traits and
their habits and gave to each a fitting name. But as he
observed them thus attentively, he noted also that they
wei'e^ale and female, that they were of diflferent kinds,
that all of one kind associated by themselves and found
joyous companionship together; But that nowhere did
he, the man, meet with one of his own kind ; that, unlike
the other living creatures, there was no female his coun-
terpart ; that for him there was no companion ; that there
was none about him that betrayed knowledge of God or
sense of obligation or perception of relationship to the
world around ; that he was alone and solitary and help-
less on earth. Teaming was awakened in him for com-
panionship, and the kind of being suitable for him was
clearly suggested to his mind. Then the Lord God
caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and he slept;
and he saw and lo ! the Lord God took one of his ribs
and closed up the flesh instead thereof ; and the rib,
which the Lord God took from man, made he a woman.
62 GENESIS 'AND SEMITIC TRADITION
And the Lord God brought the woman seen durmg the
deep sleep to the man when he awoke, and Adam recog-
nizing her said : " This is now bone of my bone and
flesh of my flesh."
If this was a vision — and the Greek translators so
understood, for they rendered the word for deep sleep in
this passage and in another presently to be mentioned
by ecstasy ^ — if this was a vision, it resembles the vision
of Abraham at Hebron in the literary form in which it is
narrated (Gen. xv. 12-18), and in its psychology that
of Peter at Joppa. In literary form it is like the vision
of Abraham, for the subjective is related as objective.
" When the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon
Abram and the Lord said to him : ' Know of a surety
that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not
theirs/ And when the sun went down, and it was
dark, behold a smoking furnace and a burning lamp that
passed between those pieces." It is like the vision
which Peter saw at Joppa in the providential preparation
of the mind for a phantasm which should convey truth.
Peter himgered exceedingly, fell into a stupor, saw a
vision of food let do\^n from heaven in a sheet, heard a
command to eat, refused because the meats were cere-
monially unclean, perceived a voice saying : " "What God
hath cleansed call not thou common." Then while Peter
doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen
should mean, behold there were three men already come
unto the house where he was, desiring him to visit and
teach a gentile (Acts x. 9-17 ; xi. 11, 12). In like man-
ner the thoughts of Adam were turned powerfully to the
absolute lack of companionship for him among birds and
beasts, his attention was directed to the twofold char-
acter of the animals which made their lairs and built
their nests together and wrought in mutual helpfuhiess,
1 Suclr is also Bishop EUicotVs opinion.
THE HELP MEET FOR MAN 53
and his mind was made to dwell on his solitude. Then
deep sleep fell upon him, and he saw one of his ribs
taken out by the Lord God, the place closed up with
flesh, and a woman formed. He awoke. Immediately,
or after a time, the woman whom he had seen in his
sleep is brought unto liim, and, recognizing her, he ex-
claims : " This is now bone of my bone and flesh of
my flesh ; she shall be called woman, because she was
taken out of man."
If this was a vision, it was the method employed by
God to reveal to man those truths regarding woman ^
upon which the moral relations rest. In a symbolic
manner man is taught that woman is one blood with
him, that she equally with him is the handiwork of God,
that she was created for the man, was committed unto
him by God, and has her place by inherent right at
man's side as help and companion.
It may be that like Paul, who knew not whether he
was in the body or out of the body, the seer of this
vision was ignorant whether the event was subjective or
objective. He transmitted it just as it occurred, with- ,
out note or comment, as a revelation of God which in- '
culcated truth even if in a symbolic manner.
There is no doubt as to which interpretation is accep-
table to the spirit of modem thought. The appeal, how-
ever, must not be solely to modem thought when a tra-
dition of hoar antiquity is to be interpreted. The main
question is what the originators and early transmitters
of the tradition intended to teach. A relevant remark is
that it is distinctly and decidedly in accord with old
Babylonian tradition, as well as with biblical history, for
divine revelation to be made by symbolic dreams.
One word may be allowed in conclusion regarding a
detail of the narrative. The Hebrew statement that
woman was called Hshshdh because she was taken from
64 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
'&A, man, has been severely criticised. The charge is
made that a false popular etymology is advanced, and
that the Hebrew writer erroneously regarded 'ishshdh as
the grammatical feminine of 'tsh. The objection is raised
unhappily, for the question of etymology is not involved
in the narrative. The derivation of the word 'ishshdh is
not the subject under discussion by the Hebrew writer,
and has no bearing on the authenticity of the record.
The narrative of the divine provision of a help meet for
man is, doubtless, like its companions, a hoary tradition
I which was handed down from Semitic ancestors to the
Israelites, and as the Hebrew language took shape was
translated into the new dialect. The words 'ish and
Hshshdh render into Hebrew the corresponding foreign
words of the tradition. The Hebrew narrator no more
asserts that 'ishshdh is derived from the same root as ish
than did the English scholars offer an etymology for the
word woman when in translating the Scriptures they ren-
dered " she shall be called woman because she was taken
out of man."
THE SITE OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN
"A RIVER went out of Eden to water the garden ; and
from thence it was parted and became four heads " (Gen.
ii. 10). These words are understood by Friedrich
Delitzsch to mean that the stream which came from
Eden parted after leaving the garden and flowed on-
ward through four channels. Glaser, on the other hand,
understands the words to mean that the stream divided
into its own four heads ; each head being itself a river,
as is expressly stated (vs. 13, 14). Glaser, indeed,
thinks that the confluence of these tributaries was be-
low the garden. Paradise being situated on some one of
them ; but it is better perhaps to modify his theory so
far as to understand that the stream which came from
Eden and watered the garden, "from that point," not
necessarily after flowing through the garden, but from
that locality, divided as one followed it toward its source
and became four heads. According to one interpreta-
tion the river of Eden divided to embrace island coun-
tries in its onward flow, or to form a delta and seek the
sea by various mouths as the Nile does ; according to
the other conception the great stream, as it was followed
upward, was found to divide into four heads, as the In-
dus separates and has for its head-waters the five rivers
of the Punjaub, and as the Mississippi parts into the
Red Eiver, the Arkansas, the Ohio, the Missouri and the
upper stream of its own name. The question will be de-
cided if the four rivers named can be discovered. It will
56 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TKADITION
then be seen whether they flow out of a single stream as
so many mouths, or whether, as so many heads, they
flow together and constitute a single stream.
Friedrich Delitzsch holds that the river which " went
out of Eden to water the garden " is the Euphrates. En-
tering the alluvial plain at a higher level and continu-
ing to flow for some distance at greater altitude than the
Tigris, the Euphrates, without the aid of its sister stream,
fed the numerous canals which irrigated the intervening
country as far south as Babylon, and was the one stream
which watered the garden. Below Babylon its abundant
waters gathered themselves into four great water-courses.
The first of these streams is the western branch of the
Euphrates, the celebrated canal Pallakopas, which was
doubtless an old natural channel converted by man into
a canal. The second is the eastern branch of the Eu-
phrates, which, after flowing through the entire central
part of Babylonia, rejoined the main channel. The third
is the Tigris, which, after receiving water from the Eu-
phrates through the canals which irrigated the garden,
again flowed onward an independent stream. The fourth
is the Euphrates, which, remarkably enough, not only
has been assigned the last place in the narration, but has
been left without description ; an omission due certainly
not to the fact that the river was known to every He-
brew — ^f or that was also the case with the Tigris — but to
its being the chief stream, the one that watered the gar-
den, the true river of Paradise. The eastern branch of
the Euphrates is probably meant by the 'Gug&n de of
the inscriptions, approximately Gihon; and since the
Kashshu from the mountains had settled in Babylonia,
this branch of the great river could be described as com-
passing the whole land of Cush. The Pishon, which
has been identified with the western branch of the Eu-
phrates, compassed the land of Havilah : a name which.
THE SITE OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN 57
judging from Gen. x. 29, xxv. 18 ; 1 Sam. xv. 7, denoted .
some portion of the Syrian desert — a part of which [a
small district in the west] is still known as Ard el-chalat
— or, more particularly, designated the territory which
bordered on Babylonia and extended to the Persian
Gulf. As gold, bdellium, and shoham stone were pro-
duced in Babylonia, they were doubtless products of the
adjacent region across the Euphrates as well ; that is,
ex hypothese, of Havilah, where, according to the Hebrew
narrator, they were found. It is stated further that the
stream which watered the garden came out of Eden. Now'
the Assyrian word edinu means a plain ; and the alluvial
lowlands at the head of the Persian Gulf and the river
bottoms for a considerable distance northward are
known at this day as " the depression," in contrast with
the higher desert plateau. It is therefore quite conceiv-
able that edinu, i.e., Eden, denotes this portion of Meso-
potamia ; the more so because the nomadic tribes who
roamed through this very region were called by the As-
syrians tsdie edini, " the people of the plain."
Such, in brief, is the admirably wrought-out theory of
Friedrich Delitzsch. Its weakness lies first in the mul-
titude of unsupported conjectures upon which the iden-
tifications rest. Gihon is a common appellative for any
rushing stream, and hence the name, even if actually
borne by a Babylonian canal, does not prove that par-
ticular watercourse to be the river which is referred to
in the description of Eden. Pishon is assumed to have
been the ancient name of the Pallakopas, and this as-
sumption makes necessary the further supposition that
the land of Havilah, which was surrounded by the river
Pishon, reached to the bank of the Euphrates, a geo-
graphical extension not supported by the biblical pas-
sages relied upon. A second weakness appears in the
improbability that gold and shoham stone, which are
68 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
«
stated by the Hebrew writer to have been obtained in
Havilah, were products of the alluyial soil of Babylonia.
The evidence that Babylonia was a gold-producing coun-
try is found in a single passage. It is recorded that
Merodach-baladan, who reigned in southern Babylonia,
brought as tribute to Tiglath-pileser, among other costly
gifts, " gold, the dust of his land, in great quantity." The
dust of southern Babylonia was thus gold or contained
gold. But is this conclusion warranted ? Was the gold
found in the alluvium at the mouth of the two rivers ?
What searcher after the precious metal ever found it
there? The hereditary kingdom of Merodach-baladan
was, indeed, on the northern shore of the gulf; but is
not the citation of this passage in proof that Babylonia
produced the gold an assumption that the boundaries
of Merodach-baladan's realm were confined to the allu-
vial plain at the mouth of the two rivers and did not,
at least during his reign, include the extensive region to
the southwest, where gold is known to have been found ?
As to the shoham stone, when it is mentioned as a prod-
uct of Melucha, proof must be furnished that the coun-
try intended is not the distant Melucha from which the
early kings of Babylonia imported gold and costly wood.
Glaser bases a theory on other identifications. He
argues from the biblical references that Havilah was sit-
uated in the interior of Arabia, and corresponded to the
district of Yemama with its extensions to the northwest
and southwest (Skizze der Geschichte und Geographic
Arabiens, S. 323-326). This land was unquestionably a
gold-producing region, and with the adjacent territory
was almost the exclusive source of gold supply for the
nations of antiquity. In this region precious stones also
were obtained ; and bdellium, which is commonly under-
stood to be the article referred to by the Hebrew writer
under the name of Vdolach. This region is di'ained by a
THE SITE OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN 59
great wady, of which one of the forks was known to the
early Arabian geographers as the Faisan, i.e., in Hebrew
PSshon. The waters of the wady fail, however, to reach
the gulf, a peculiarity of many Arabian rivers, and can
only be traced by the character of the vegetation (S.
f342-347). In central and eastern Arabia, more defi-
nitely in Jebel Shamar and the adjacent country to the
south and east as far as the Persian Gulf, Cushites dwelt
at one period of history as they were migrating from
Elam to Abyssinia, thereby causihg the country to be
known for a time as the land of Cush (S. 338 and 355,
and cp. Gen. x. 7) ; and the wady Rumma, which gathers
the waters of this region and conducts them toward the
Persian Gulf, was known in olden time as Djaichan, or,
as the Hebrews would render it, Gechon, i.e., Gihon (S.
342 and 355).
Glaser accordingly interprets the Hebrew writer as
meaning that below the garden of Eden was a place
where four rivers united. Two of these were the Tigris
and the Euphrates ; the others were the wady Pishon,
which drains a part of central Arabia, and the wady
Rumma, formerly Gihon, which carries off the waters of
the neighboring region on the north. The garden, how-
ever, cannot be accurately located, he thinks, even if the
uniting-place of the four rivers were fully known, be-
cause we do not know on which of the four rivers
Paradise was situated. We may assume that the bib-
lical author conceived of the garden as being immedi-
ately above the confluence of the four rivers. This place
must be sought in the neighborhood of Bosra (S. 320-
322).
The fatal point at which the theory of Glaser breaks is
his identification of the Gihon with the wady er-Rumma.
This identification rests upon a mistake. The poet, upon
whom Glaser relies, does not refer to a river of Arabia,
60 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
when he mentions the.Gihon, but to the Pyramus in Cili-
cia (Noeldeke, ZDMG., 44, 4, 1890, pp. 699-700).
Friedrich Delitzsch brought forward proof to show that
Cush is, in the first instance, practically the same as
Elam. This fact Fritz Hommel introduces as a modifi-
cation of Glaser's theory. He accepts the identification
of Havilah with the mountain district of Yemama in Ara-
bia. In regard to the land of Cush, he claims that it be-
comes more and more probable that Elam as a whole —
not excepting the region north of it, known to the classic
Greek writers and the inscriptions of the later Assyrian
kings as the country of the Cossaeans — was called Kash in
earlier times. According to this, our Kush (originally
Kosh, derived from Kash) is the same as Elam ; and the
Gihon is the Kherkhah, which rises in the Cossaean moun-
tains, flows past Susa, and now empties into the Tigris
below its union with the Euphrates, but which in an-
cient times perhaps found an outlet directly into the Per-
sian Gulf. South Babylonia is the neighborhood in which
in the earliest times the Babylonians (or the Sumerians),
and after them the Hebrews, located Paradise " (Sunday-
School Times, December 5, 1891).
Despite these scholarly investigations, it can scarcely
be said that the location of the garden has been finally de-
termined. Research has, however, been rich in results ;
and facts have been ascertained and data obtained which
bid fair to enter into the final solution of the problem.
These factors are :
1. Mesopotamia was known in whole or in part as
I 'Minu.
2. Havilah was a district in the eastern part of the
Arabian peninsula. In this neighborhood is found the
mountainous region now known as Yemama, a land of
gold and aromatic gums and drained by a wady which,
in a part of its course at least, went by the name of Pe-
THE SITE OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN 61
shon. Whether the waters of this wady ever reached the
gulf remains, however, a question.
3. The name Cush, or its equivalent, belonged, with
greater or less extension, to the region of mountain and
tableland which lies to the east and northeast of Baby-
lonia.^
4. The Persian Gulf was called a river, the nar mar-
rS.tu. So to-day the estuary which embraces Manhattan
Island is called a river. As the nar marratu lay partly
within the plain and received a large proportion of its
waters from Mesopotamia, it could be regarded as com-
ing out of, rather than as extending into, the plain edinu.
Into this "river" the Tigris and Euphrates, and riv-
ers of Elam, and perhaps wadies of Arabia, discharged
their waters.
If the facts which have been stated shall eventually be
found to bear upon the site of the garden of Eden, it
will be seen that the four rivers are enumerated, in the
Hebrew description, in geographical order. The most
southern, according to these data, was the Pishon, and
» The relation between the names Kaahshijty KovaSXot, and Kt<r<rtot^ is still in
dispute. It is known that in the time of Sennacherib the Kashshii occupied
a district ^^ between Assyria and Elam on the borders of Media ; " that the
Koa<r£iot, were found in the valleys of the Zagros Mountains on the borders of
Media ; and that in the days of Darius the Great and his successors Ki<r<riri
was the country in which Susa was situated. Whether these names represent
unrelated peoples, or different branches of the same folk, is beyond our pres-
ent purpose to inquire.
Kashshii »-KO(ro-<fiot, but not jciVo-ioi, Hal6vy, ZA., vol. iv., 208.
" — " uncertain as to " Schrader, KGP., 176 seq.
*• — KiV<rioi, but not KovvdXoit Oppert, ZA., vol. iii., 431 seq.
Lehmann, ibid., vii. , 328 seq.
** — ^* and ^^ Delitzsch, Paradies, S. 54, unten ;
Tiele, Geschichte, S. 70 oben.
** = KWFfrSXoi, Noeldeke, N.G.G W., 1874, St. 8, S. 178 seq.
Whatever relation these words bear to each other, one or more names hovered
about the high land on the east and northeast of Babylonia, which could be
reproduced in Hebrew ^3, just as the Hebrews made Kush out of K(Z8h,
Kaiah^ Kesh^ KUh^ the names by which Ethiopia was known to the Egyptians
62 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
drained the land of Havilah ; the next, on the north,
flowing in from the east, came from the mountain land
of Cush ; the next in order to the north was the Tigris ;
and the most northern and the main stream was the Eu-
phrates
\
eiiowJDg the betid-dreeB of a. god, a prleal and a worslilpper. An act ot worahlp ia la pn^resB.
VI
THE TEMPTATION OP MAN
In the Babylonian and Oriental Eecord for October,
1890, and again in the Christian Commonwealth, Mr. W.
St. C. Boscawen has published what he believes to be
the Chaldean tradition of the fall of man. He says :
"In one of the Creation tablets, perhaps the third of
the series, there occurs near the end a most remarkable
passage.
The great gods, all of them the foretellers of fate,
Entered and in a deadly manner the god Sar was filled [with
anger].
Wickedness one with another in assembly makes.
The word was established in the garden of the gods.
They had eaten the asnan frait, they had broken . . .
Its juice they sucked
The sweet juice which in drinking crushes the body.
Great is their sin ... in exalting [themselves].
To Merodach their redeemer he has appointed the destiny.
It is clearly to be seen," continues Mr. Boscawen, "that
here, unfortunately in a somewhat mutilated form, we
have a most important tradition. It has the important
elements common to the Hebrew tradition of the anger
of the god, here the god Sar, the god of *the hosts of
heaven,' the * Lord of Hosts,' who punishes with death ;
the eating of the fruit of the asnan tree, the sin ; and
the appointment of Merodach to be the redeemer of
those who had sinned.
" There are several points of special interest in this
64 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
text. In the first place, the asnan tree is most remark-
able. It is a word which means doable parallel, and
evidently explains the reason why the sacred tree on the
Assyrian monuments is represented with two stalks;
/and also, I think, explains the confusion between the two
j trees in the Hebrew Genesis, the tree of life and the tree
of knowledge of good and evil. . . . Still more im-
portant is the word at the end of the last line but one,
itellu 'they exalted themselves,' when we consider it in
j connection with the expression in the Bible, 'Behold,
man is become as one of us to know good and evil.' I
now come to the most important point of all, and one
fortunately on which there can be no doubt on the
ground of mutilation of text. * To Merodach their re-
deemer he appointed the destiny.' Here the expres-
sion admits of no other translation, it occurs in many
inscriptions with the meaning of * restorer of satisfaction,'
as in the case of obtaining satisfaction for war or rebel-
lion. . . . We have, therefore, in this a clear indi-
cation of the Messianic office of Merodach according to
the Babylonian teaching. We must remember also that
in the great tablet of the War in Heaven, it is Merodach
/who slays the serpent and crushes the brain of the crea-
ture — bruising his head. I venture, therefore, with every
confidence to say that in this little but priceless fragment
we have clear indications that a story of the fall, very
closely resembling in detail that of Genesis iii., was cur-
rent in Babylonia at an early period."
These articles by Mr. Boscawen have been widely cop-
ied. The scholarship of their learned author has been
relied upon for the essential accuracy of the translation.
Jn this instance, however, the work of Mr. Boscawen is
laulty. According to the context and to a comparison
with the ninth line of the text, the characteristic and de-
termining phrase translated " in the garden of the gods "
THE TEMPTATION OF MAN 65
should be rendered "at a feast." The asnan tree, in
which reference is seen to the tree of knowledge of good
and evil and on the ground of which the charge of con-^
fusion is brought against the Hebrew narrative, was
probably not a tree at all, but wheat or some other grain
(Zimmem, Busspsalmen, S. 99 ; Jensen, Kosmologie, S.
279). The eating of the asnan fruit is an act of the gods |
themselves and not of man ; and it is described, not as a
sin, but as one of the pleasures of the repast. The destiny
appointed for Marduk is not that of redeemer, but of
avenger ; and he is not sent forth in behalf of sinners,
but to avenge the gods who had been sinned against.
In fact the passage has no reference at all to the garden\
of Eden and the fall of man. It occurs in the Creation
tablets after Marduk has offered to go forth against
Tiamat as avenger of the gods and before he has been
commissioned for the conflict. It tells how the gods
who determine destiny entered [perhaps into assembly
for consultation], celebrated a feast together, appointed
the destiny for Marduk, set him in the princely chamber
and, when he had acquiesced in their investiture of him
with regal authority, hailed him as now numbered among
the great gods and as their authorized avenger.
No trace of an Assyrian or Babylonian parallel to thej\
Hebrew narrative of the temptation has yet come to
light, unless it exist in the well-known intaglio. On this
.celebrated cylinder seal a tree is engraved ; beneath the
boughs of foliage two bunches of fruit hang from the
trunk on long naked stems ; on each side of the tree a
being, in form human, is seated facing the tree and ex-
tending the hand as though to grasp the fruit ; in the
rear of one of the figures, or rather between the backs
of the two (for the engraving encircles the cylinder), a
serpent is seen erect as though standing. The picture
at once strikes the beholder as a representation of the
5
66 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
temptation. All the elements of the narrative seem to
be present. Lenormant asserts that " it does not lend
itself to any other interpretation" (Les origines de
rhistoire, p. 91), and Delitzseh goes so far as to declare
that it is the fall (Paradies, S. 90). .
The reference to the temptation is, however, problem-
atical. Of course the fact that the figures are robed,
, wear coverings on the head, and sit on chairs does not
'militate against their being intended to represent Adam
and Eve. It would only be another instance of the cor-
ruption to which traditions were subjected in Babylonia,
and another example of the superiority of the Hebrew
transmission. Primitive man did not weave cloth and
^manufacture stools ; his first raiment was the skin of
beasts. But still the reference of the picture to the fall
of man is doubtful. Schrader has always maintained
that an allusion to the fall cannot be proved; and he
points out that a specific feature of the narrative, namely,
that the woman gave the fruit to the man, is not indicated
(KA.T I, S. 37). The workmanship of the seal is rude ;
so rude indeed that it is not clear whether one of the fig-
ures is intended for a woman, or whether both are meant
for men. Sayce says that " the two figures seem both to
be males" (Smith, Chaldean Account of Genesis, ed.
Sayce, p. 89). Menant also believes them to be men
(Glyptique orientale, P P., p. 189 seq.). Their raiment
affords no aid in determining their sex ; for each wears
a plainrobe which reaches to the ankles. Nor does the
diflferent head-gear distinguish them as man and wom-
an, as Delitzseh asserts that it does (Paradies, S. 90).
In Assyrian and Babylonian art the homed head-dress
is found sometimes on the head of a god, sometimes on
the head of a sacred attendant, sometimes on both ; and
the hat or turban is sometimes worn by the god, and
sometimes by the worshipper. Nor does the presence
THE TEMPTATION OF MAN G7
of the serpent decide the meaning of the Bcene. It may
have been introduced for the purpose of ornament, or the
better to distinguiBh this signet from others, and not as
sigmficant of the temptation. Animals of various kinds
are of common occurrence on the seals for such pur-
poses. A snake is figured in the field of the third seal
shown on the page of iUnstrattons at the beginning of
this chapter, a seal which represents the adoration of a
god and strikingly resembles the so-called Adam and Eve
cylinder in several particulars ; and on the seal repro-
duced in the accompanying cut, in which events in the
career of Izdnbar are depicted, the serpent and other
emblems not essential to the story are introduced.
Wliile, therefore, it is not impossible that the engraving
on the so-called Adam and Eve seal is a representation of
the temptation, yet it is equally, if not more, probable
that it depicts a god receiving adoration from a priest
or other worshipper.
i BULL, £ABANI AND A LIOH.
vn
THE SERPENT OF THE TEMPTATION
The thought came to George Smith, as it has come to
every reader of Babylonian tradition since, that there
may be some connection between the dragon of the Chal-
Mean creation story and the serpent of Genesis. The
formidable Tiamat, commonly called a dragon because
terrible by nature and represented as a composite mon-
ster, was the disturber of order and the enemy of the
gods. The serpent of the book of Genesis sought to
undo the work of God by seducing man to rebel against
his maker. The idea of some connection between these
two foes of good is alluring, but on reflection it does
not seem probable.
The question is not whether the Chaldean story of
the dragon ever furnished the prophets of Israel with im-
agery to set forth their thought. Sublime literature may
legitimately borrow the fancies of fable and appropriate
them to its own use. The question is whether the con-
ception of the dragon foe of Marduk and the serpent
tempter of man have community of origin : whether, if
traced back far enough, they would be found to merge
into the same account or, if not that, whether one would
be found to have suggested the figure of the other. It is
this which on reflection does not seem probable.
The accounts of the conflict of Marduk with Tiamat
f and of the temptation of man are not counterparts. They
narrate entirely different events. So much is clear. But
although the events are entirely different, the same evil
THE SERPENT OF THE TEMPTATION 69
being might be a prominent participant in both. The
two narratives might relate to different episodes in the
career of the same incarnate agent of evil.
Hebrew literature does not comitenance such a theory,
despite the effort that has been made to prove that it
does. The argmnent has been advanced that in Job, in
the Psalms and in Isaiah there are allusions to the Baby-
lonian dragon-myth. Sound exegesis casts doubt upon
the correctness of this allegation in most, if not all, in-
stances ; but it is not necessary to discuss that question
here. The more plausible it can be made that " the ori4
gin of Bahab and Leviathan is to be found in that of I
Tiamat" (PAOS., vol. xv. 25), the clearer does it become
that the serpent of the temptation and the monster of the
myth were sharply defined and distinct from each other
in the Hebrew mind. In the book of Enoch, further,
" the serpent whose name is Tabaet " ( = Tiamat, sug-
gests Barton, PAOS., vol. xv. 20 seq.) is distinguished from
the wicked angel Gadrel who descended to earth and se-
duced Eve. It is not until the Christian era, long after
the exile, centuries after the story of Bel and the dragon
had become familiar to the Jews, that there is any sem-
blance of combining striking elements of the two narra-
tives. It has been conjectured that the seer of Patmos
had the story of Tiamat in mind and employed its imag-
ery when he drew his great picture of the dragon, " the
old serpent, he that is called the devil and Satan." Of
course, the assumption that Tiamat was in the thought of
the poet, rather than the innumerable dragons of which
men have dreamed, is groimdless ; but it may pass un-
challenged. Let its validity be granted. With the fervid
imagination of the poet, John the divine seized upon the
salient features of the two arch-enemies, and blended the
borrowed characteristics in a new creation of his inspired
genius. But in doing so he is far from identifying the
70
GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
two agents of evil. The devil which John describes is
not the Tiamat of the Babylonian mjrth, even though he
embodies in Satan certain attributes of the she-monster.
The art and literature of Babylonia, at present avail-
able, are equally at variance with the theory that Tia-
mat's conflict with Marduk and the serpent's seduction of
the woman are but different episodes in the career of the
same evU being. A cylinder seal, of which a sketch is
presented herewith, has been cited to the contrary, as
affording the connecting link between the tempter-ser-
pent and the monster Tiamat. The seal was discovered
by Dr. William Hayes Ward in the possession of the
late Hon. S. Wells Williams. ** It represents," to quote
Dr. Ward's detailed explanation, " a fleeing serpent, with
its head turned back toward a deity, who is swiftly pur-
suing it, and who smites it with a weapon. The other
figures in the seal have no relation to the pursuit of the
serpent by the god. They are put in by the engraver
simply to fill up the space, although all separately sig-
nificant, no doubt. The small kneeling figure probably
represents the owner of the seal. The two other figures
behind the god represent no recognizable deities, and
may be meant for priests. Filling up the smaller spaces
are the female emblem Krek, six planets, or perhaps
stars of the Pleiades, and two smaller branches, which it
would be hazardous to regard as representing the two
trees of the garden of Eden " (Bibliotheca Sacra, 1881,
p. 224).
THE SERPENT OF TOE TEMPTATION 71
To understand the significance of thia seal, it mnst
be compared with others. For this purpose Dr. Ward
selects a cylinder made familiar
by Geoi^e Smith. " It will be
seen," says Dr. Ward, " that this
is very much like Dr. Williams'
cylinder. The dragon, which
corresponds with the serpent in
the latter, is in the attitude of retreat, and turns its head
back toward its pursuer, who is running rapidly and who
shoots it with an arrow. The figure of the priest is the
same (reversed), and of the kneeling owner, as also the
representation of the minor accessories, the stars and
the KTe(t, although the winged circle, emblem of the su-
preme power, replaces the crescent of the moon-god.
There is also a figure of a winged monster represented
under the feet of Bel, for which there was not room on
Dr. Williams' cylinder, but where an indistinct line or
two indicates that it was in the mind of the engraver.
It was very likely an attendant of the Dragon, or possi-
bly of Bel. . . . We may, then, regard this new seal
of Dr. Williams as certainly representing the conflict of
Bel and the Dragon, the dragon being figured as a serpent."
Dr. Ward may be followed thus far, but no farther.
No intermediate story is implied by the engraving on
the seal, as he presently supposes. The scene depicted
on the cylinder does not exhibit a tradition in which
"the demiurge Bel-Merodach attacks and punishes the
serpent by bruising its head." It has no likeness to the
narrative in Genesis, in which the serpent is not slain
by God, as pictured on the seal, but is condemned to go
on its belly, eat dust, and be bruised on the head by the
seed of the woman. There is no reason to believe that
the cylinder tells any other story than the traditional
conflict of Marduk and Tiamat. The scene is obviously
72 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
the same as that depicted on the other seal, which is un-
questionably the familiar tale. The difference is one of
detail only ; the beast, instead of being the conventional
dragon, has the body and tail of a serpent. But its
head is delineated with the familiar features of the
dragon ; it has the two ears, the proboscis-like pro-
jection in front, the spines on the neck. It has the
same sex as the dragon, if any conclusion may be drawn
from the diamond or /cretV, which here, as frequently on
other cylinders, is placed near it. And it appears to be
attacked through the mouth, as was the great she-mon-
ster of the deep in the story as told by the tablets, and
as depicted on the companion seal. The huge, snake-
like creature is one of the variant forms which the dread
primeval ocean assumed in imagination.^ Indeed the
form of the body is perhaps an adaptation of the con-
ventional mode of depicting water, and serves to more
positively identify the monster as typical of the sea.
Water is thus represented under a boat on the cylinder
reproduced in the next chapter, and there, as here, forms
part of the body of a composite creature. The picture
on the Williams' seal affords no evidence of a story es-
sentially different from the current myth. We are still
dealing with the conflict of Marduk and Tiamat, the
dragon monster, symbol of the primeval ocean lashing it-
self to fury.
The question accordingly resolves itself into this:
Whether in ages long past, when the story of the compos-
ite monster Tiamat and the account of the tempter- ser-
pent lay side by side, there was any thought that these
agents of evil were one and the same being participating
in different events, or, if not that, whether the beast of
1 The most Burprising variation is the occasional representation, in sculpt-
ure, of the dragon as a male, contrary to the tradition (see illustration
facing p. 4). Berosus and the creation tablets are positive and emphatic as
to the sex of Tiamat, and the name itself is a distinctly feminine formation.
THE SERPENT OF THE TEMPTATION 73
the one narrative suggested the imagery of the other.
As already said, this is improbable. The significance of
the she-monster is perfectly clear. Her name told every
Semitic Babylonian that she was not a reality, but a per-l
sonification, a symbol of the sea. The story itself turned
on the thought of the engulfing and merciless ocean con-
spiring with the huge fantastic masses of scurrying fog
and cloud to overwhelm the world and reduce the
ordered universe to primeval watery chaos, but defeated
by the rays of the unconquerable sun. To set forth
these things, the figure of the composite dragon cameV
unsought ; itself a creature of the imagination, a beast
unseen on earth and dimly defined to the mind, but
monstrous in form, enormous in bulk, and terrible in
aspect and power.
With this being the serpent of the temptation has
nothing in common. He is a beast of the field and licks
the dust. The tradition in which he is an actor em-
bodies a moral, and not, like the dragon-myth, a physical
idea. If the seducing serpent is a historical fact, its
presence in the tradition is due to its participation in
the event ; if, on the other hand, the narrative of the
temptation be regarded as a parable and the serpent as
a personification — a theory which is unproven — there is \
still no substantial ground for believing that the tempter- '
serpent either suggested the image of the dragon or, vice
versa, was itself suggested by the story of that mythical
monster. The snake is a natural symbol of sin. It
comes spontaneously to the mind ; Tor sin, like the ser-
pent, is a monster of hideous mien which creeps in by
stealth and infuses poison by its bite.^ Considered in
> The serpent appears as aptly in a parable of the temptation as does the t
like reptile in the poem of the seven evil spirits, which has been already
quoted :
** Lock and gate do not exclude them,
In at the door like a snake they go,
In at the threshold like the wind they blow."
//
74 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
this light, the only light which can at present guide in-
vestigation, " some original connection " between the
tempter-serpent and the dragon Tiamat, even so slight as
borrowed imagery, is a gratuitous assumption.
A point of contact with the tradition of the temptation
has been suggested as possibly found in the legend of
Izdubar. " Tsitnapishtim, who dwells in ' Paradise ' (on
the ' island of the blessed ' ) and in whose possession is
a plant with the name ' Aged a man becomes young,'
gives of this plant to Izdubar. On the way thence to
Erech, it is taken from him by a snake (?). Has this
plant of life," asks Jensen, from whom also the foregoing
sentences are quoted, "nothing to do with the tree of
life in the garden of Eden, and the snake (?), nothing to
do with the hostile serpent?" (Kosmologie, 8. 227).
The caution which puts the suggestion in the form of a
question rather than of a declaration is weU observed.
A connection between the garden of Eden with its tree
of life and the youth-renewing plant of the island where
the Babylonian Noah dwells in the enjoyment of im-
mortality is not at all improbable. There is also no
reasonable doubt as to the word snake, for the reading
of the cuneiform character which represents it is now
regarded as certain by both Delitzsch and Haupt, the
two collators of the text. But the story of the loss of
the life herb by a descendant of Noah cannot be regarded,
and doubtless is not regarded by Jensen, as a parallel
to the tradition of the temptation. Izdubar was jour-
neying homeward with a plant in his hand which had
rejuvenating virtue. On the way he espied a well and
stopped to refresh himself. A serpent came forth, some-
thing happened to the marvellous plant,^ a demon in the
Vorm of a lion ascended from the earth, seized the herb
and disappeared. Filled with dismay Izdubar exclaimed :
1 Jeremias renders : '* The plimt slipped from me " (Izdubar-Nimrod, S. 40).
THE SEEPENT OF THE TEMPTATION 75
"I have wrought no benefit to myself, the good has
accrued to the lion of the ground." Now, did the ser-
pent of the temptation suggest this snake detail of the
story of Izdubar ? There is no reason to think so ; for,
though the theory would be acceptable and would in no-
wise disparage the Hebrew account, it finds scant support
in the tale, the snake playing so insignificant a part.
The snake had less to do with Izdubar's loss of the plant
than the lion of the ground had and is less conspicuous
in the narrative.
It remains to exhibit the Hebrew doctrine of the se-
ducing serpent. The temptation to sin came from with-j
out. The tempter-serpent is a real serpent, for it is
compared with the beasts of the field, a comparison
which would be pointless if the serpent described were
not one of them ; it possessed a natural characteristic of
serpents, namely, subtilty ; and the curse pronounced
upon it rests upon the serpent as an animal.
The serpent tempted in his subtilty. The docility of
the serpent and its tamableness were early discerned, its
wisdom was proverbial (Matt. x. 16), its wiliness and
spitefulness were matters of general belief. Before the
domestication of the horse and the dog, while the beasts
remained in their natural state, the serpent ranked high
among animals for apparent intelligence and skill in
securing prey. *
The serpent of the temptation possessed the natural
attribute of subtilty in an extraordinary and supernatu-
ral degree. The language employed is like that used in
reference to Samson : " his " strength is spoken of, and
the strength of that man of might was the natural attri-
bute of man possessed in an extraordinary degree through
the working of God's spirit (Judg. xvi. 5, 9, 17, with 20
and 28). Eve saw a snake, and it is not necessary to
suppose that she opined more ; but back of the serpent
t
76 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
was an evil spirit (cp. the swine, Mk. v. 13). This was
current interpretation in Israel, when insight into religi-
ous truth was clear. The writer of the Wisdom of Solo-
mon says that death came into the world through the
''envy of the devil (ii. 23). Christ seems to have the same
thought in mind when he says : " The devil was a mur-
derer from the beginning : when he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father
thereof " (John viii. 44). Paul who speaks of the ser-
pent beguiling Eve in his craftiness, elsewhere, in evi-
dent reference to the curse upon the serpent, alludes to
(God bruising Satan xmder our feet (2 Cor. xi. 3 ; Bom.
xvi. 20). John, elucidating the imagery of his visions,
explains that the dragon which he sees in a certain con-
nection is a type of " the old serpent, him that is called
the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world "
(Rev. xii. 9).
The serpent of the temptation addressed the woman.
.Yet according to the narrative the animals of Paradise
■were unable to talk. Man differed from them in pos-
sessing the power of speech. He gave names to the
beasts about him, for they as speechless creatures were
unable to do this for themselves (Keil). The serpent ad-
dressed the woman in words produced by the power of
Satan (cp. the demoniacs and Num. vii. 89).
% "As punishment for its participation in the sin, the
serpent-tempter is condemned to go on its belly, eat
dust, and to engage henceforth in mortal struggle with
» mankind. The words of the curse do not necessarily
mean that the serpent had walked before it seduced
man. It is remarkable that neither in the judicial sen-
^ tence nor in the earlier reference to the serpent in verse
1, is anything said about its mode of locomotion (Dill-
mann). It may always have crept; the punishment
being that henceforward its creeping and its eating or
THE SERPENT OT THE TEMPTATION 77
licking dust (Mic. vii. 17 ; Is. xlix. 23) shall be a symbol
of degradation and a memorial of its part in man's first
disobedience.
Though an irresponsible brute beast, the serpent was.
included in the curse. According to the Mosaic law a(
beast, which was made the hapless victim of man's un-i
lawful lust, is condemned to death (Lev. xx. 15 seq.).
So the serpent, although not itself accountable, was put
under the curse because it had been used as an instru-
ment of sin. But the scope of the curse is wider ; the
sentence addressed to the serpent terminates, not on the
bodily form, but on the indwelling, intelligent spirit.
The body of the serpent was but the tool, the inhabiting
spirit was the guilty agent.
vrn
THE CHERUBIM
The identity of the cherubim with the winged man-
headed bulls of Assyrian and Babylonian sculpture was
mooted as soon as excavation brought to light these
colossal stone steers (see e.g. Kitto, Cyclopaedia, cut 232 ;
Layard, Discoveries among the Buins of Nineveh and
Babylon, p. 549 ; Studien u. Krit., 1871, S. 403). The
theory received impulse from the reported discovery of
the word kirubu in a magical text where in corresponding
inscriptions shedu, or some other name of the winged
human-headed steers, is used. Schrader states that Le-
normant wrote to him in the year 1873 of the existence of
a Babylonian amulet in the possession of M. de Clercq, on
which hi-rU'bu is found in the place occupied by shedu in
similar legends ; and Schrader adds that " this informa-
tion, if confirmed, would prove the Babylonian origin of
the cherubim and their identity with the colossal winged
bulls which guard the entrance to temple and palace, or
at least with the divine beings which these colossal fig-
ures represent (KATl, S. 39 f.).
At a later date Lenormant himself spoke definitely in
print. " It is certain," he says, " that the winged bull
with a human head was called Tdrvbu. The talismanic
monument belonging to the collection of M. Louis de
Clercq employs the term kirub (written phonetically K-
ru~bu) where shMu or the corresponding idiographic
group is found elsewhere " (Les origines de I'histoire, p.
118, Eng. tr., p. 126). In the same connection, the French
gateway uf Sargon'e palace. The arch that once Bpsoned tbe
Bptiuig from Che heads of the larger bulle. Height of
larger bulls, dghteeu feet.
r
THE CHERUBIM 79
savant drew attention to the scene engraved on a cylin-
der seal, in which he saw the counterpart of the imagery
of Ezekiel's vision. The prophet beheld "four living
creatures " or cherubim which, in Lenormant's opinion,
were arranged two and two, back to back, and went " each
one straight forward " toward the four quarters. Over
their heads and borne by them was a crystal pavement ;
and above the pavement the likeness of a throne, as the
appearance of a sapphire stone, and upon the throne the
likeness as of a man enveloped in shining light. It was
the appearance of the likeness of the glory of God. On
the cylinder seal ref eiTed to is depicted a marvellous boat
terminating at each end in a human half-figure. On the
boat two winged bulls, each with the face of a man, stand
back to back. Their position necessarily presupposes
two other like animals hidden by them, which support
the other side of the pavement that they bear on their
shoulders. On this pavement is a throne ; upon which a
bearded god is seated, clad in a long robe, with a tiara
on his head and a short sceptre and a ring in his hand.
By his side stands a personage of inferior size as though
awaiting his commands ; like the man in the vision of
the tenth chapter of Ezekiel, the man clothed in linen
with the writer's ink-horn by his side who receives the
commands of Jehovah.
Friedrich Delitzsch has also adopted the theory of the
identity of the cherubim with the colossal winged bulls
of Babylonia. The argument as recast by him is, 1. The
living beings with wings of bird and face of man which
Ezekiel describes^ bear a remarkable external resem-
blance to the winged human-headed bulls of Babylonia.
2. The function of the colossal steers of Babylonia is
also the same as that of the cherubim of the Hebrews :
they stand as watchers at the entrance of temples and
1 They have, however, the face of eagle, ox, and lion aa well as that of man.
80 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TUADITION
palaces, guarding the precmcte from intnisioii ; and
thej appear — as e.g. on the boat engraved on the cylin-
der — like the cherubim in Ezekiel's vision, as bearers of
the throne of God.' 3. The strongest evidence exists,
however, in the interchangeabUity of the names kirvhu
and shedn, as is proven by the inscription in the posses-
sion of M. Louis de Clercq (Faradies, S. 150-153).
Twenty years have elapsed since the letter of Lo-
normant was written to Schrader. The tahsmanic mon-
ument has not been produced in public, it would seem,
and its reading remains unconfirmed. The cautious-
ness observed by Schrader in basing an ailment on it
is commended by a recent writer who signs himself v. F.
(ZA.,vol. i, 68-70). " None other of the Assyriologista,"
he says further, "who know the collection of M. de
Clercq, has confirmed the news ; " and he concludes his
note on the subject with the remark that, " so long as
nothing authentic is known in regard to the amulet
which is at present in the possession of M. de Clercq,
we must acknowledge that proof has not been furnished
of the employment of the word Ictrvbu to designate the
Assyrian bull divinities."
Boscawen seeks to identify the scorpion men, aqrabu-
amelu, who guarded the way
which Izdubar was obliged to
pass, with the cherubim of
Genesis (B. and O. Record,
vol. iii,, 145 seq.). The duties
which devolved upon the
aqrabu-men and the cherubim
are somewhat similar, but the
names are not akin. Aqrabu, aipj, etc., have no etymo-
It^cal connection with 3113.
■ DelitzBCh holds also that the Ecven demona of Babylonian mythology are
" in last analyain idcnlioal with thobull diviDiliog" and " arc repeatedly called
THE CHERUBIM 81
So much as to the efforts made to find the counterpart of
the Hebrew cherubim in Babylonian thought and art. But
what weje they in themselves ? What was their nature ?
Cheyne sees in the cherub " a form of speech retained
from myth-making times, and meaning the storm-cloud
or (as Professor Tiele suggests) the cloud masses which
seem to guard the portals of the sky, and on which the
sun god appears to issue forth at break of day " (Proph-
ecies of Isaiah, vol. i., p. 115, ii., 298). Now if cherub
is a common noun and means storm-cloud — a natural
object to which Semitic nature worshippers would, of
course, at once ascribe a spirit — the imagery of the
psalmist is satisfied when he says : " Thick darkness was
under his feet and he rode upon a cherub and did fly ; yea,
he flew swiftly upon the wings of the wind " (Ps. xviii.
9-10). If it means storm-cloud, much that is predicated
of the cherubim is also met ; for the storm-cloud moves
through space, could bear the visible glory of Jehovah,
betoken his indignation, and warn against intruding into
his presence. If cherubim signify storm-clouds, they
could also be stationed at the entrance of the garden
with the flaming lightning to keep the way to the tree
of life. It is impossible, however, that the storm-cloud
as a thing animated and revered as divine by heathen
polytheists is intended in the Hebrew scriptures; and
it is difficult to reconcile the interpretation of the
woVd cherub as a common noun meaning merely the
storm-cloud with the biblical descriptions in which
the * throne-bearers of the gods/ thus resembling the Merkaba [or cherubim] of
Ezekiel" (Paradids, S. 152). But this resemblance vanishes if, as Jensen
argues, the word guzalUt^ translated ^* throne-bearer/* means rather ** a com-
missioner ^ (Kosmologie, S. 890). And there is no proof that the seven demons
are **in last analysis identical with the bull divinities." They are indeed
like the bulls called ahedu ; but this means that the seven demons and the
bulls belong to the category of inferior supernatural beings, for as is well
known sfiedu is a general designation for demon, whether good or evil. It is
the Hebrew word *7©.
6
82 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
cherubim are represented, emblematicallj it is true,
yet distinctly, as intelligent beings with strength like
the ox, courage like the lion, flight like the eagle;
celestial beings, it would seem, with special office, com-
missioned to bear Jehovah's glory, indicate his nearness,
and guard his presence from intrusion. Now Franz
Delitzsch believed with Cheyne that " in Ezekiel as in
other parts of the Bible we trace the connection between
the cherubim and the thunder-storm, in which God
manifests himself. There is the same fire of lightning
running to and fro, and the same roar as of rumbling
wheels. " And he held the cherub to be " a creation of
Semitic heathenism which deified the powers of nature "
(Schaff-Herzog, Art. Cherubim ; Delitzsch, Genesis^ S.
114). But he was not blind to the fact that the biblical
writers represent the cherubim as animate beings. How
then does he reconcile the two conceptions ? He thinks
that after the storm-cloud had been deified by the heathen^
it was denied deity by the Hebrews, but left animate.
It was not a storm-cloud lowering in the sky, it was not
a mere power of nature, and it was not a god ; yet it was
animate. " The religion of revelation depotentiated the
cherubs as it did other heathen deifications of natural
forces, making of them powers (Bwdfiei^) subordinated
to the Lord of hosts (fcvpio<; r&v Bvvdfietov), It proceeded
on the conception that there is a heaven where God is
surrounded by superhuman beings, among whom kre
those who belong in the immediate presence of him who
sits on the throne, are his bearers when he is manifesting
himself in his glory in the world, and are the guardians
of the place of his presence, warding off everything un-
like in character and unprivileged to approach."
This is the explanation offered by the devout Franz
Delitzsch. The facts are perhaps not all in, upon which
the final solution of the question depends; but in the
THE CHERUBIM 83
meanwhile it must be confessed that Delitzsch has
erected a stupendous theory on scanty evidence. When
the testimony that is offered is sifted, the interpretation of
cherub as storm-cloud seems to rest, first, upon the pas-
sage in the Psalms where it is said of Jehovah that
" thick darkness was under his feet and he rode upon a
cherub and did fly ; yea, he flew swiftly upon the wings
of the wind : " and secondly, upon the possibility of dis-
cerning the lightning in "the flame of a sword which
turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
In the great body of passages, however, which relate to
the cherubim a reference to the storm-cloud is, to say the
least, not manifest. Moreover, the evident difficulty
which Delitzsch experiences in reconciling the prepon-
derating or, quite possibly, constant biblical description of
the cherubim as intelligent beings with the interpretation
of the word cherub as storm-cloud is against such inter-
pretation. A minor feature of the delineation is forced to
outbalance the major feature. Likewise, no conclusive
evidence has yet been furnished that the winged, human-
headed bulls of Babylonia symbolized the storm-cloud.
This explanation of the bull divinities also seems to rest
ultimately upon the passage quoted from the Hebrew
psalm, the idea deduced from the words of the Hebrew
poet being imposed upon the Babylonian bulls. Indeed
the Babylonians represented the storm-cloud as a bird,
the well-known Zu bird ; while the winged, human-
headed bulls seem, like the Hebrew cherubim, to typify
beings with the strength of an ox, the free motion of a
bird, and the intelligence of a man.^
Whatever may have been denoted by the cherubim and
1 No evidence has been adduced to prove that ^* the bull begotten of the god
Zu '' (IV R. 23 ; cited by Cheyne, Isaiah, vol. ii. 296) has any reference to the
winged, human-headed bulls. Professor Sayce thinks that the colossal bulls
which guarded the entrance to temple and palace ** represented divine beings,
the gods or genii of the household " (Hibbert Lectures,' 1887, p. 290).
84 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
whatever be the outcome of the search after analogues
among other peoples, it is important to emphasize the
fact that the delineations of them in art and their forms
as seen in vision were, like modem pictures of angels,
symbols only. The representation in wood, stone, or
embroidered cloth, and the evanescent appearance which
flitted before the mind of seer, awakening a sense of the
dread presence of God and quickening expectancy of a
manifestation of his glory, were not regarded as the thing
itself. They were not always the same in form, for they
resulted from the struggle to approximate the truth ;
they were felt to fall below the conception ; they were
known to be merely the image which betokened the
greater reality. In the account of the garden of Eden,
the writer is not speaking of images placed at the portal,
but of the reality itself, stationed to keep the way.
IX
CAIN AND ABEL
The search which has been prosecuted in Babylonian
Kterature for counterparts to the Hebrew records has not
been neglected in the case of the narrative of Cain and
Abel. Professor Sayce has thrown out suggestions in
his Hibbert Lectures which tend to identify the god
Tammuz with Abel.^ His argument is best presented by
copious quotation. " Tammuz," he says, " must have
been the primitive Sun-god of Eridu. ... It is
even possible that the boar whose tusk proved fatal to
Adonis [the Greek Tammuz] may originally have been
Adar [the Sun-god of Nipur (p. 153)] himself. Adar
. . . was called the * lord of the swine ' in the Accadi-
an period, and the Semitic abhorrence of the animal may
have used it to symbolize the ancient rivalry between the
Sun-god of Nipur and the Sun-god of Eridu. Those
who would see in the Cain and Abel of Scripture the rep-
resentatives of elemental deities and who follow Dr. Op-
pert in explaining the name of Abel by the Babylonian
ohlu, ' the son,' slightly transformed by a popular etymol-
^ For other suggestions — some based on mistranBlatioDS, dae of coarse not to
lack of scholarship on the part of the translator, bat to the nnadvanced stage
of the science — all dubious and speculative and making no claim of furnishing
a dooamont parallel to the Hebrew tradition, see Lenormant, Les origines de
Thistoire, chap. vr.
86 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
ogy, may be inclined to make them the Adar and Tam-
muz of Chaldean faith." The name Tammuz means in
" the original Accadian * the son of life ' . . . inter-
preted by the Semites as meaning * the offspring.' " ^
"As Abel in the Old Testament is * a keeper of sheep/ so,
too, Tammuz in Babylonia was accounted a shepherd."
" The title * lord of the pig ' connects Adar with the
Ares of Greek mythology, who in the form of the wild
boar slew the Sun-god Tammuz ; while the title [also
applied to him] * lord of the date ' — ^the chief fruit of
Babylonia — ^reminds us of Cain, who was * a tiller of the
ground ' " (Hibbert Lectures, pp. 236, 232, 245, and 153,
note 6 ; and cp. p. 186).
The combination of facts and fancies presented in these
extracts is ingenious, but the particulars have no eviden-
tial value.
1. Tammuz indeed probably means ** son of lite " and
Abel may be a modification of the Assyrian word aplu,
son. But these facts are far from establishing the iden-
tity of the two. The name in each case has its occasion
and its appropriateness. The god who, though dying an-
nually, returns to life with each recurring year, is beautiful-
ly and aptly named " son of life." The bare and bald
word son likewise might be fittingly bestowed on the
child Abel, corresponding to the appellatives Adam hvr
man being, Eve life, Cain formation; but it would not
be more appropriate than the designation breath, vanity,
the posthumous name given to him which told the story
of his untimely end, and the name by which in fact he
was remembered.
2. Abel was a keeper of sheep; and Tammuz, it is
true, was likewise called a shepherd. The passage cited
» Not, however, as meaning "the only son," as might be gathered from Pro-
fessor Sayce^s additional statement ; at least not so interpreted in the pas-
sage cited in proof, II R. 36, 54.
CAIN AND ABEL 87
in proof forms the introduction to a brief text ( IV E. 27,
No. 1), of which the first two lines are as follows :
" Shepherd, lord, god Tammuz, husband of goddess Ishtar,
King of the nether world, king of the [watery] abode, shep-
herd."
But the title given to the god is not distinctive. It does
not belong exclusively to Tammuz. The god Gir, son
of Shamash, whom Professor Sayce will scarcely identify
with Tammuz after what he has said on p. 233, is also
called a shepherd (ASKT., p. 105, 10). Nor does the
title describe Tammuz as a keeper of sheep. It is figu-
rative. It was in constant use as a synonym for ruler.
As Professor Sayce himself says (p. 245) : " The Chal-
deans were a people of agriculturists and herdsmen ; their
monarchs were addressed as shepherds." The fact that
Tammuz is called a shepherd affords, therefore, no proof
of any intention to describe him as a keeper of sheep or
even as patron of a guild. He is hailed as ruler.^
3. Whether Tammuz be regarded as symbolical of the
sun dying in winter and reviving with the return of
spring, or as the sun-god of spring whose foe was the
simimer heat (Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, p. 231), or as the
vegetation of spring destroyed by the scorching rays of
the eastern sun (Jensen, Kosmologie, S. 480), the essen-
tial idea in the nature-myth was the annual return of
Tammuz to life. The revival of the dead god is the pith
of the tale. But Abel whom Cain slew rose not again :
his life on earth was extinguished ; as a link in the
1 In another passage in which Professor Sayce, assuming an error to have
been committed by the writer of the tablet, sees a reference to ^^ some deity,
probably Tammuz, who is called 'the divine son* in the Aocadian text*'
(Hibbert Lectures, p. 489), and who is presently termed shepherd, it is the
translator and not the Assyrian scribe who is at fault. There is no allusion to
Tammuz. The word which is looked upon with suspicion, forms part of
the xoyal name Ashurbanipal, and the paragraph is a prayer in behalf of that
monarch. King Ashurbanipal is the shepherd.
88 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TUADITION
genealogical chain he dropped out, the godly line of
Adam descended through another.
The Hebrew narrative stands accordingly as yet alone.
The Hebrew scriptures furnish the only document known
in which the tradition has been transmitted and can be
studied. The preservation of the tradition by the relig-
ious teachers of Israel was due to its ethical value. It
exhibits the conduct that is acceptable to God and traces
the downward progress of sin.
The two brothers on reaching man's estate devoted
themselves the one to agriculture, the other to the tend-
ing of flocks. In process of time each brought an offer-
ing unto the Lord. The offerings were alike in being
valuable gifts, the product of the offerer's daily toil, pre-
sented unto the same God ; yet " the Lord had respect
unto Abel and to his offering, but unto Cain and to his
offering he had not respect." God looked on the char-
acter of the man (as is evident from v. 7). Abel was ac-
cepted because his heart was right towards God : he was
righteous (Mat. xxiii. 35 ; 1 John iii. 12) ; he believed at
least that God is, and that God is the rewarder of them
that diligently seek him, and he conformed his conduct
to this belief. Cain, on the other hand, was a wicked
man, and his character was speedily revealed to the
world. Instead of being incited to earnest searching of
heart because his offering was rejected, he allowed anger
to fill his soul, refused the exhortation to strive against
sin, committed murder, and became hardened, denying
knowledge of his brother's whereabouts and disclaiming
responsibility for him ; and when judgment was passed
on the awful deed, he manifested no regrets for the sin
but only concern about the punishment. Such a- fearful
advance had man made in the career of wickedness.
God had accepted Abel and his offering, and had re-
jected Cain. At the dawn of history the cardinal truth
CAIN AND ABEL 89
was made known to man that " the sacrifice of the wicked
is an- abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the up-
right is liis delight " (Prov. xv. 8).^
1 In this narrative the writer tacitly assumes that man was increasing on
the earth. Gain foreboded danger at the hands of his kindred as soon as his
foul deed should become known to them. Belationships were constantly be-
coming more remote. There were people more closely bound by blood and
interest and affection to the one brother than to the other, and Gain expressed
the fear that the impulse to take vengeance would be followed. The increase
of man on earth is involved in Cain's marriage also. He had a wife ; his bis-
ter perhaps or his half-sister or his niece. In early ages no impropriety ex-
isted or was felt in such marriages. Abraham had a half-sister to wife,
aud Nahor a niece (Gen. xx. 12 ; xi. 27, 39) ; and Egyptian princes not in-
frequently married their sisters.
CAINITES AND SETHITES.
Sanchoniathon, the " philosopher of Tyre," has given
the Phoenician account of the origin and development of
human civilization. This description of man's progress
presents points of contact, and is frequently compared,
with the genealogy and work of the Cainites as recorded
in the fourth chapter of Genesis. The Phoenician his-
torian, as reported by Eusebius from Philo of Byblos,
wrote as follows :
^* Of the wind Kolpia and his wife Baan, which is interpreted
* night/ were bom Aion and Protogonos, mortal men thus named;
and Aion discovered how to nourish oneself from trees. Their
offspring were called Genos and Genea. They dwelt in Phoenicia.
When droughts occurred, they lifted their hands to the heavens
towards the sun (for they thought that it was the only lord of
heaven) calling it Beelsamin, which in Phoenician means ' lord of
heaven.'
Of the race for, according to the Latin version, of Genos the
son] of Aion and Protogonos were again begotten mortal childreo,
whose names were Fhos, Pur, and Phlox. These found out the
method of generating fire by rubbing together pieces of wood,
and taught its use. They begat sons who surpassed them in
size and excellence, and whose names were given to the mountains
of which they were the lords ; thus Mount Cassius [in Syria] and
Lebanon and Antilebanon and Bratha took their names from
them.
Of these was begotten [Sa]memroumos or Hupsouranios. He
dwelt in Tyre, and found out how to make huts of reeds and
rushes and papyrus. He quarrelled with his brother Ousoos.
The latter was the first to invent a covering for the body out of
the skins of the wild beasts he was able to catch. . . . He
CAINITES AND SETHITES 91
also, having taken a tree and lopped off its boughs, was the first
who dared to put out to sea. He consecrated two pillars to fire
and wind ; and he worshipped them and poured out to them the
blood of the wild beasts he had taken. When these men were
dead, their survivors consecrated staves to them and worshipped
pillars and kept feasts in their honor year by year.
Long afterwards, Agreus and Halieus were bom of the race of
Hupsouranios. They were the originators of hunting and fishing,
and from them hunters and fishermen are named. Of these were
begotten two brothers, the discoverers of iron and its working.
One of these, Ohrusor, practised words, spells, and divinations;
he invented the fishing-hook, bait and line, and the raft; and
he was the first to use sails : therefore men worshipped him after
his death as a god. Some say his brothers thought of making
walls of bricks.
Afterwards, of his race, two youths were bom, Technites and
earthy Autochthon. They devised mixing stubble with the clay
of bricks and drying them in the sun ; and they also invented
roofing. By these others were begotten, one of whom was called
Agros, the other Agroueros or Agrotes. They devised the addi-
tion of courts, enclosures, and cellars to houses. From them
come rustics and such as hunt with dogs, called wanderers and
Titans.
From them also sprang Amunos and Magos, who taught men
to construct villages and tend flocks. Of these came Misor and
Suduk, that is * active * and * just ; ' and they discovered the use
of salt. From Misor sprang Taautos, who invented the writing
of the first letters, and whom the Egyptians called Thoth. From
Suduk descended the Dioscuri or Cabiri or Corybantes or Samo-
thracian deities. They were the first to invent a ship. From
these descended others who discovered medicinal herbs and the
cure of poisons, and spells."
A number of Semitic words occur in this passage.
Baau and Beelsamen, Samemroumos, Misor and Suduk
are at once recognized. But the names are for the most
part Greek, and are doubtless translations of the original
Phoenician words. Proceeding on these facts Orelli, who
edited an edition of Sanchoniathon in 1826, and Lenor-
mant would retranslate Aion, " lifetime," into its Semitic
92 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
homophone and partial synonym chavvah, "life," i.e. Eve;
Protogonos, "first-bom," they woul4 render by Adam,
" man ; " while in Genos they see the Grecized form of
Cain. Thus at once the close relationship between the
story as told by Sanchoniathon and the tradition which
was current in Israel becomes apparent : for according to
Sanchoniathon s account, when translated back into the
original Semitic, the first mortals were Adam the first
and Eve, who discovered the art of nourishing oneself
from the fruit of trees ; of this couple were bom Cain
and Caina, and from Cain proceeded a race which be-
came noted for its contributions to the arts and for its
introduction of new occupations among men. But in
spite of these striking results, the attempt of Orelli
and Lenormant is a failure. Philologically it is wild,
and at the same time it appears to be based on a mis-
conception of the Phoenician story. The most that sober
scholarship can say has been said by Dillmann in his
remark that the closest resemblance of the Cainite nar-
rative with the Phoenician legend lies in the connect-
ing of the stages of civilization with certain names, and
that it is especially worthy of comparison that "two
brothers appear as the discoverers of iron and its work-
ing, and one of them practised words, spells, and divina-
tion, with which compare the double sense of charash
in Hebrew and Aramaic " (Genesis,* S. 102).
Persons are not intended by the Phoenician narrator.
In his story the proper names are common nouns. This
was clear to his fellow-countrymen, and was not ob-
scured in the early Greek and Latin translations. Two
mortals, Sanchoniathon says, were brought into ex-
istence, Duration-of-life and First-bom ; of whom the
former discovered the nourishment that is in the fruit of
trees. From this couple proceeded Race or Family and
Stock, and from Race were bom three mortals. Light,
CAINITES AND SKTHITE8 93
Fire, and Flame, who discovered how to produce fire by
friction. From these came stalwart beings who were
lords of the mountains. Of them in turn sprang two
brothers, named respectively One-from-high-heaven and
Ousoos [a name of which the meaning is unknown]. The
brothers were hostile. The one invented huts of reeds
and dwelt at Tyre : the other was a hunter in a primitive
sort of way, who caught animals as best he could, used
their skin for clothing and their blood for libations;
who, discerning that logs float, essayed into the sea on
a tree-trunk, and who worshipped the elements. Long
afterwards, of the race of the hut-dweller. Hunter and
Fisher were bom, who introduced hunting and fishing.
Tlien came the two who discovered iron and its working,
of whom one Chrusor [the meaning of which name is un-
known] introduced fishing implements, devised the raft,
employed sails, and used incantations. Afterwards, in
his line, appeared Artificer and Earthy-Native, who
made bricks of clay and introduced the roofing of houses
[commonly with earth]. Of these were bom Field and
Rustic, wdth whom began husbandry, the addition of
courts, enclosures, and cellars to houses, and hunting
with dogs. From them sprang Amunos [perhaps mean-
ing " defence "] and Magos [meaning unknown], who in-
troduced villages and the tending of flocks. From these
came Rectitude and Justice, who found out the use of
salt [and who regulated civil life (Dillmann)J. Of Recti-
tude was bom Taautos, the Egyptian Thoth, who intro-
duced the use of letters in writing ; while from Justice
sprang the Dioscuri [the protectors of ships in storms].
From these sprang the discoverers of medicinal herbs.
Sanchoniathon rehearses his tale in the form of a
genealogy ; but it is probable that he never intended it
as an actual family history. The links consist of abstract
conceptions, occupations, and natural objects connected
94 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
with modes of life, the names undisguised. The nouns
mirror the new and salient feature of the age under re-
view. The story is a sagacious and remarkably success-
ful attempt to exhibit the characteristics of the successive
stages of human development, beginning in primitive
times and extending to the date when the description
was penned. The author describes the several ages by
indicating the novelty that marks progress. The char-
acteristics were :
Of the 1st age. Birth of man and mere monotonous
duration of life. Food consisted of fruits.
Of the 2d age. Lineage or family.
Of the 3d age. Fire, as produced and employed by
man.
Of the 4th age. The mountain chieftains.
Of the 5th age. Settled life over against roving life.
Huts of reeds ; and clothing of skin, floating on logs,
worship of the elements.
Of the 6th age. The hunter and the fisher.
Of the 7th age. The ironworkers; fishing implements,
raft of logs, use of sails, incantation.
Of the 8th age. The artificer and the native one, of
earth, who make bricks of clay and roof houses.
Of the 9th age. The field and the rustic ; exhibited in
husbandry, enlargement of houses [for storing prod-
uce], employment of dogs in hunting.
Of the 10th age. Towns built and flocks tended.
Of the 11th age. Eectitude and justice ; seen in the reg-
ulation of civil life. Salt used.
Of the 12th age. Alphabet introduced, the complete
ship.
Of the 13th age. Medicine.
The scheme is admirably worked out. The floating
log is gradually developed into the complete ship, the
CAINITES AND SETHITES 95
hut of reeds into the spacious, roofed house of bricks,
the rude seizure of animals into hunting with dogs.^
When the Phoenician narrative is scanned, it loses
greatly in resemblance to the Hebrew account. But in-
dependently of this interpretation of the Phoenician story,
the theory of its connection, however remote, with the
Hebrew tradition is unnecessary and for the following
reasons improbable: 1. Though the Phoenician tale be
pure speculation, yet since it treats of a theme which is
incidentally mentioned in the Hebrew account of the
Cainites, it must show points of resemblance to the
Hebrew record. Certain facts in the history of human
progress are evident to the thinking man and must find
place in every thoughtful narrative of man's advance
in civilization. These discernible facts form points of
resemblance, even though the several narratives in which
they occur are independent of each other in origin.
2. The Phoenician story is local in its details: Phoe-
nicia is the abode of men when they are still naked
and without fire ; the race begins its development under
the shadow of Lebanon and Antilebanon and Cassius ;
in the neighborhood of Tyre the first hut-builder dwells ;
the metal discovered and worked is iron, a product of
the Sjoian mountains ; the sea allures the venturesome,
provokes the mind to invention, and opens a highway
to the papyrus of the neighboring Nile. The scene
of the Hebrew narrative is the far east ; the first man
dwelt in Eden, near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers,
and Cain journeyed into the land of Nod on the east of
Eden. 3. The names in the Phoenician story are com-
mon nouns, and denote abstract ideas, or trades and occu-
1 The biblical picture is less detailed. 1 . Man ; his food the fruit of trees,
and God the object of worship. 2. Sin; 3. Clothing of skin. 4. Tilling soil
and tending flocks. 5. The community or town. 6. Nomad shepherds with
movable tents, musical instruments, copper and iron working.
96 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
•
pations, or natural objects connected with modes of life.
In the Hebrew narrative the names do not mark advanc-
ing civilization nor even denote trades, unless in the
case of the sons of Lamech ; and the list contains two
examples of the compound proper names in vogue among
the Semites, Mehujael and Methushael, of which the
latter has a decided Babylonian cast. 4. The Phoenician
tale is told in the manner of oriental philosophy, putting
its speculations or its knowledge of the development of
civilization figuratively in the form of a genealogy and
treating the novel feature of each age as a person and a
progenitor because embodied in and transmitted by suc-
cessive generations of the human race. The Hebrew nar-
rative, on the other hand, has the characteristics of hu-
man family history, concrete, personal, living.
A common element, indeed, these two accounts have.
Each is based on the belief that man came forth from the
hands of the Creator with capacity, but without attain-
ment. He was ushered naked into the world and for a
time he lived in it naked, without knowledge of the
resources of inanimate nature and without apprehension
of the. utility of animals ; but created with powers of dis-
cernment and ability to subdue the earth and all things
in it unto himself.
A Babylonian tradition is available for comparison
with the account of the Sethites or ten patriarchs which
is given in the fifth chapter of Genesis. In the second
book of his history, Berosus enumerates the ten kings
OAINITES AND SETHITES 97
of the Chaldeans who reigned before the deluge;^ He
says 2 that
**The first king was Alorus of [the city of*] Babylon, a Chal-
dean. [He gave out a report about himself that God had ap-
pointed him to be shepherd of the people.*] He reigned ten
sars. [A sar is thirty-six hundred years.' ]
And afterwards Alaparus [his son* reigned three sars* * ].
And [after him ' ] Amelon [a Chaldean * ], who was of [the city
of ' * ] Pantibiblon [reigned thirteen sars* ].
Then Ammenon the Chaldean [of Pantibiblon reigned twelve
sars* *].
Then Megalarus of the city of Pantibiblon, and he reigned
eighteen sars.
And after him Daonus the shepherd of Pantibiblon reigned ten
sars.
Then Euedorachus of Pantibiblon reigned eighteen sars.
Then Amempsinus, a Chaldean of Laranchae, reigned ; and he,
the eighth, was king ten sars.
Next Otiartes, a Chaldean of Laranchae, reigned ; and he [the
ninth ^ ] was king eight sars.
And [last of all * ], upon the death of Otiartes, his sonXisuthrus
reigned eighteen sars. In his time the great deluge occurred.
Thus, when summed up, the kings are ten ; and the sars are
one hundred and twenty [or four hundred and thirty-two thousand
years, reaching to the flood '].**
This catalogue resembles the Sethite genealogy re-
corded in the fifth chapter of Genesis in that it is re-
stricted to antediluvians, contains the names of ten per-
sons, and terminates with the hero of the flood. The
diflference between the lists, at least as they now lie be-
fore us, is however as marked as the agreement. The
corresponding names in the two catalogues bear no out-
» SjmcelluB quoting Alexander Polyhistor.
^ Syncellus quoting Apollodorus.
* Syncellus quoting Abydenus.
* Sjmcellus quoting Abydenus concerning the deluge.
* EusebiuB, Armenian Chronicle, quoting Alexander Polyhistor.
* Euaebius, Armenian Chronicle, quoting Abydenus.
7
98 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
ward resemblance to each other ^ and the years ascribed
to the corresponding names stand in no arithmetic ratio
to each other ; the Hebrew register is silent as to the
rank or title of the men whose genealogy it records, while
the Babylonian enumerates kings ; the one is a lineage in
which each member is related by blood to both his pred-
ecessor and successor, the other is a line of kings of
whom the father is not always followed by the son, but a
new dynasty occasionally arises ; the one gives a geneal-
ogy of the human race from its origin, the other begins
with the first king of Babylon. But all these differences
may perhaps lie on the surface. 1. The Babylonian list,
as it now exists, contains indeed the names of kings only,
but this may be an error which grew out of the felt need
^ Internal resemblance may, of course, exist notwithstanding external nn-
UkenesB. Before, however, the meaning of the names in the two lists can be
snccessf ally compared, the original Babylonian form of those which Berosne
gives mnst be determined. And this is difficult. But the difficulty is not due
to contradictions in our present manuscripts. The names have been trans-
mitted by them with substantial unanimity, except in the case of the third,
fifth, seventh, and ninth. The references are to the footnote oh the preceding
page.
1. "AAttfpoc.S'S Alorus.*'^
2. 'AXAwofiOi.*'* Alapams.^'*
3. 'Am^Amv.s 'AfuAAopof.s Almelon.**
4. 'A/ifiivnv*'* Ammenon.***
R. Mcy^Aopof.'*' Amegalarus. '•*
6. AoMvot* Aajus.* Davonus.^*
7. EvcSupaxof.* Eve3wpc9xoc-' Edoranchns.* Edoreschus.*
8. *A^cfA^ii^$f.> Amemphsinus.*
». 'ApWT»|«.» •Oniipni?.' Otiartes.»
10. Bi<rov9poc.i>* IXtnvBpof* "XunBpof* Xisuthrus.***
Variations of minor importance, frequently alluded to, are 'AAwnropoc and
'Am^(« (Syncel., p. 18 A, a passage full of errors) as second and eighth kings ;
MtyJiXaviti (God. Paris., 1711) as fifth ; Amen phsinus as the eighth, occurring
in both places where the name is found in the text, but corrected in the mar-
gin to Amemphsinus ; and Scaliger^s readings 'Aefiupcoxoc' and often Seitrovtfpoc.
Of the many attempts made to discover the original Babylonian form of
these names and to identify them with the corresponding ones in the Hebrew
list, that of Delitzsoh, meagre as its results are, has not been superseded
(Paradies, S. 149). Perhaps the latest essay in this line is HommePs (PSBA.,
XV., 243 seq.).
CAINITES AND SETHITES 99
to bestow some title on these men commensurate with
their renown. If not kings, they were famous. The cunei-
form tablets which contain an account of the deluge are
at least three hundred years earlier than Berosus, and do
not describe Xisuthrus as king ; nor does the biblical ac-
count so describe Noah. 2. In the Babylonian list the
descent of the government from father to son is asserted
in two instances only, namely, from the first king to the
second and from the ninth to the tenth ; and the exist-
ence of three successive dynasties, namely of Babylon,
of Pantibiblon, and of Laranchae, seems to be affirmed.
But the Hebrew asserts kinship, however remote, between
the successive links. Still the genealogy which is re-
corded by the Hebrew writer is not unlikely just such a
one as might be constructed out of the line of English
monarchs who have reigned since the Norman conquest,
by the selection of ten names in their chronological se-
quence which would represent the different dynasties and
at the same time would exhibit the unbroken descent
from the Conqueror. 3. Each of the ten patriarchs is
assigned a prolonged life ; each of the ten kings has a
greatly longer reign. The contrast is twofold ; between
the number of years in corresponding cases, and between
length of life and length of reign. But instead of this
difference indicating non-identity of the two lines, it may
be found, when the Semitic tradition is fully known, to
afford a simpler explanation than that usually offered for
the duration of life which is ascribed to the patriarchs.
4. The symmetry of the numbers in the Babylonian
transmission is open to the suspicion of being artificial.
The number of kings is ten; the sum of their united
reigns is one hundred and twenty sar, a multiple of ten
and of the basal number of the Babylonian duodeci-
mal system. There are three reigns of ten sar each,
three of eighteen sar each, and three successive reigns
100 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
which taken together make ten and eighteen sar. Taking
the reigns in the order in which they occur, we have as
their duration the series 10, 18 + 10, 18, 10, 18, 10, 8,
and 18.
What then is the relation of these lists to each other?
It is diiBcult to say. The wiser course is to suspend judg-
ment for the present and allow the question to remain
open. The facts are capable of two interpretations : either
the two catalogues are fundamentally different, having
been constructed for different purposes, yet as they deal
with prominent persons belonging to the same historic
age and to the same country, cross each other at various
points, and culminate in the same individual ; or else — and
this is the more probable theory — when the accretions
and transformations of centuries are removed, the two
catalogues will be found to represent the same tradition.
XI
THE SONS OF GOD
The intermarriage of the sons of God with the daugh-
ters of man is related in the sixth chapter of Genesis.
No parallel to this account has been discovered. Inves-
tigation is accordingly shut up to the question of the in-
terpretation of the biblical naiTative.
At least two conceptions of the phrase " sons of God "
in this passage are known to have existed at the begin-
ning of the Christian era, and a third co-existed with them
in the early Christian centuries. 1. The sons of God
were sons of the mighty of the earth who married with
women of the lower classes. This view is represented by
the Samaritan version, by the Greek translation of Sym-
machus, and by the targums of Onkelos and Jonathan.
2. The sons of God were angels who, leaving or hav-
ing left their first estate, took wives from among
the children of men. This view is represented by the
Book of Enoch, by Philo and Josephus, and by the
most ancient of the fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Clem-
ent of Alexandria, and TertuUian. 3. The sons of God
were the Sethites. They were attracted by the beauty
of women who did not belong to the godly line, married
with them and became secularized. This is the view of
early churchmen like Julius Africanus, Chrysostom and
Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, and Jerome.
The first interpretation has been generally abandoned
as unwarranted. The second has many advocates, num-
bering among them the great exegetes Franz Delitzsch
and August Dillmann. Dillmann takes a low view. He
102 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
finds in the narrative a reminder of heathen mythology ;
and he holds that the account has been drawn from an-
cient legends of the giants, beings half god and half
man. Delitzsch, on the other hand, like Justin Martyr of
old and Kurtz among modem scholars, entertains a high
view of the passage. His argument is substantially as
follows : 1. Everywhere else in the Old Testament the
phrase " sons of God " means angels and must have the
same meaning here. The name refers to the nature of
angels, not to their office. The official title is maVach,
messenger. They are sons of God by nature, whether
they are good or evil. 2. The sons of God are con-
trasted with the daughters of ^nariy the divine is con-
trasted with the human : for the expression ** daughters
of man" is to be understood in the light of v. 1, where
man means mankind in general, and not that portion
of the race which had become estranged from God.
3. The phrase " to take a wife " means entrance into
permanent married relation. The account does not
speak of single acts of intercourse, but of permanent and,
so far as the angels are concerned, unnatural relation
with women. It must, therefore, be assumed that the
angels assumed human bodies and not that they mani-
fested themselves transiently in human form.^ The case
is parallel to later instances of possession by evil spir-
its. Demons, having taken possession of the bodies of
[wicked] men and using them as instruments, married
the daughters of men. " In this," he adds, " we perhaps
go beyond the narrator, who here reduces to the kernel
of truth the obscene stories which heathen mythology de-
lights to elaborately embellish."
In confirmation of his argument Delitzsch appeals to
Jude 6 : " Angels which kept not their own principality,
1 On the basis of Gen. vi. Knrtz founds the doctrine that angels are not
pure spirits and incorporeal, but are possessed of bodies.
THE SONS OF GOD 103
but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlast-
ing bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great
day." But 1. The very point at issue is whether Jude is
referring to the sixth chapter of Genesis or not.^ The
existence of fallen angels was known, even if their fall is
not recorded in the sixth chapter of Genesis. Satan was
a fallen being and an outcast from heaven while man was
yet in Eden. His angels also, for whom together with
him the eternal fire had been prepared, fell from their
first estate of holiness (Matt. xxv. 41 ; Rev. xii. 9). Jude
may have these events in mind. Again in Is. xxiv. 21-23,
on Delitzsch s own interpretation, a punishment of angelic
hosts and earthly princes is described which bears close
resemblance to the passage in Jude ; and Cheyne under-
stands that Jude and Peter and John (Eev. xx. 2-3) and
the author of the Book of Enoch in another place (xviii.
13-16) refer to this passage. It is begging this question,
therefore, and precarious to assert that Jude attributes
the fall of angels to their intermarriage with mankind.
And 2. While Delitzsch regards the narrative in Genesis
as history, he fails to explain how angels by taking pos-
session of the bodies of men could, as indwelling spirits,
experience the mystery of human affection or gratify
a carnal appetite. It would be the human instrument,
not the indwelling controlling demon, that would feel.
Kurtz is right. If angels entered into marriage relation
with women, they are corporeal beings (History of the
Old Covenant, i., p. 100 seq.).
The chief objections to the theory which regards the
sons of God in the sixth chapter of Genesis as angels are
two. 1. A very early interpretation of the passage,
perhaps the most ancient known, that of the Samaritan
version, explained the sons of God as human beings.
1 The word " these" in y. 7 may refer either to the angels of y. 6 or to the
inhabitants of Sodom.
104 OKNKSIS AND SKMITIC TRADITION
This is strange if the title was given by the Israelites to
angels exclusively. The view that angels are meant
seems to be a later growth ; it was, at all events, the
teaching of a special school among the Jews of the first
century, and not of the whole or even most influential
part of the Jewish church of that day. 2. The second
objection to the theory in question is that it contradicts
the Scripture doctrine of angels. No biblical writer any-
where else countenances the idea that angels could or
would enter into married relation with mankind. The
uniform representation of Scripture elsewhere is that the
passions of demons, irrespective of the form of wicked-
ness into which they may drive the possessed, and the
emotions of unfallen angels are without exception spir-
itual, not carnal. It is doctrine novel to Scripture that
woman's beauty could arouse animal love in angel or
demon.
The third theory, namely, that the sons of God were
the godly race of Seth, is satisfactory. For 1. Accord-
ing to a very early interpretation, the most ancient
one perhaps that is attested, men are meant. 2. Judged
from the standpoint of biblical angelology, men are
meant. 3. The title " sons of God " is not restricted
in the Scriptures to angels. In biblical language the
worshippers of a god are the sons or, as the word is
frequently rendered, children of that god. If the whole
nation is given to his worship, they are called the
people of that god. The Israelites were the " sons of
the living God" (Hos. i. 10), the "sons of Jehovah"
(Deut. xiv. 1 ; xxxii. 19 ; Is. xliii. 6 ; xlv. 11), the " people
of God" (with article, Judg. xx. 2). Israel was "his
son" (Hos. xi. 1 ; Ex. iv. 22), Ephraim his "dear son"
(Jer. xxxi. 20). The godly are " the generation of his chil-
dren " (Ps. Ixxiii. 15), while those who have dealt corruptly
are " not his children " (Deut. xxxii. 4, 5). The Moabites
THE SONS OF GOD 105
were known as the people of the god Chemosh and as his
sons and daughters (Num. xxi. 29 ; Jer. xlviii. 46). Under
circumstances closely resembling those mentioned in the
sixth chapter of Genesis, when Judah contracted heathen
marriages, he was said to have married "the daughter of
a strange god " (Mai. ii. 11). Even judges, because en-
trusted with the administration of divine law, are called
" gods, the sons of the Most High " (Ps. Ixxxii. 6). Sons of
God was the proper title to apply to his worshippers among
the antediluvians. 4. The title " sons of God " — a desig-
nation broad enough to include all godly men — is appro-
priate to the Sethites, who seem to be prominently before
the mind of the writer ; for they were the worshippers of
God. Despite the corruption into which they finally
sank, they were distinguished as a godly race. The line
of Seth began in a family which acknowledged the true
God and recognized his goodness (iv. 25). In that line,
in the next generation, God was worshipped in his char-
acter as Jehovah (iv. 26 and cp. v. 29). In that line was
the Lamech who cherished a hope of redemption from
the curse. In that line were Enoch and Noah, both of
whom were conspicuous for their piety ; through the one
God gave to the antediluvian world striking evidence of
future life with God, and interposed to save the family
of the other from the universal destruction. By right,
therefore, the Sethites might be called the children
or sons of God. 5. The use of the term " man " finds
suitable explanation. It is not contrasted with God,
but with the sons of God as a class, and means other
men generally, as in Jer. xxxii. 20 and Is. xliii. 4, where
in contrast with Israel it means men generally, people who
are not of the chosen nation. God, it is said, did " set
signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, even unto this
day, both in Israel and among [other] men." After the
same manner Gen. vi. 1-2 may be read : When man in
106 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
general began to multiply on the face of the ground and
daughters were born unto them, the sons of God saw the
daughters of men generally that they were fair ; and they
married whomsoever they chose. 6. These imworthy
alliances are described in v. 3 as being the sin of man,
not of angels ; and the offspring of the union are men,
not demigods, v. 4 (see below). A period of one hundred
and twenty years is granted to man, not to angels, for
repentance ; and the flood destroys sinful man, not fallen
angels. 7. The place occupied by this account in the
general narrative of Genesis suggests that the narrator
meant Sethites by the term " sons of God." The writer
gave a history of the fall of man ; he then recounted the
progress of evil, the downward course of sin, the origin
of two races or classes of people, their separate develop-
ment and diverse moral tendencies ; and finally he de-
scribes the intermarriage of the two peoples in order to
show how the godly were secularized and corrupted, and
to explain why there were not righteous men enough to
avert the deluge (cp. Gen. xviii. 20-33).
On broad scriptural grounds, therefore, and from the
details of the account and the place occupied by it in the
narrative, we conclude that by the sons of God the pious
race of the Sethites is meant.
The offspring of the mixed marriages were nephilim.
This word is rendered gibbaraya! by Onkelos, ylyavT€<; by
LXX, hnirhrrovre^; by Aquila, ^taloi by Symmachus.
The etymology is doubtful. Many derivations have
been proposed. It has been traced, for example, to the
Assyrian p&lu, strong, mighty; and to the Hebrew
naphal in the sense (1) of fallen, sinful beings, or (2) of
beings characterized by falling upon others, violent, or
(3) bastards, analogous to nephel, abortion, miscarriage.
The word occurs in but one other passage, namely in
the report of the ten faint-hearted spies concerning the
THE SONS OF GOD 107
obstacles to the conquest of Canaan. They had seen the
Nephilim, i.e., Anakim, who were descended from the
Nephilim ; and in comparison with them the Israelitish
explorers felt themselves grasshoppers (Num. xiii. 33).
But these people were not giants in the sense usually .
associated with that term ; they were not beings of super- %Jtf^ a ,
human size and extraordinary power ; they were not even yf * '
exceptional ; for it is expressly stated that there were * ^v ^ '
other nations in Oanaan "great and tall like the Ana-
kim " (Deut. ii. 10, 20), and the spies reported that all
the people of the land were men of stature (Num. xiii.
32). The Anakim were large, stalwart men, who had dis-
tinguished themselves in war and whose invincibility had
become proverbial (Deut. ix. 2). And the question remains
unanswered whether the name Nephilim denotes largeness
of frame or fierceness of disposition or lowness of birth.
In regard to the antediluvian Nephilim, a description
of them is given in the verse in which they are named.
They are not called men of stature. They are de-
scribed as " mighty " men. The word employed is gih-
b6r, which signifies a valiant man, or a warrior, or a
hero. The mighty men whom David had are called gib-
bSrim (1 Chr. xi. 10, et seq.), but they were not giants.
Of course the word might find fitting application to a gi-
ant, but not in reference to his stature. The essential
idea of the word is strength, not size. The Nephilim are
further described as " the men of name " whose deeds of
valor or violence got them " renown " (cp. Num. xvi. 2,
1 Chr. V. 24, and the deeds of David's mighty men, 1
Chr. xi. 22-24). Bodily strength and the disposition to
exercise it in acts of violence would naturally appear in
the offspring of the intermingling peoples ; for it is a
universally recognized fact that the engrafting of one
race upon another not too different produces a more vig-
orous type of men, and that marriage between the godly
108 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
and the worldly results in a loss of spirituality and a low-
ering of the moral tone.
Only one other matter remains to be considered.
Those who interpret the sons of God as angels (errone-
ously, we think) commonly discern a counterpart to the
intermarriage of the sons of God with the daughters
of men in certain tales of Grecian mythology. If the in-
terpretation of the title " sons of God " which has been
defended in the foregoing discussion be valid, there is
no ground for such comparisons. But it may be well to
waive the question of exegesis and to consider the alleged
parallelism solely in the light of archaeology.
Josephus, although he is of the number of those who
identify the sons of God with the angels, sees nothing
superhuman in their oflfspring. The latter were " despis-
ers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they
had in their own strength." And he adds : " The tradi-
tion is that these men did what resembled the acts of
those whom the Grecians call giants." Have we then
after all, as some have imagined, arrived at the myth of
the giants? Although Josephus, who is writing for
Greek readers, points out only a resemblance between
the actions, although the language of the Hebrew narrator
does not imply beings of gigantic size, is the Hebrew
record nevertheless nothing but a popular myth deprived
of repugnant features and adjusted to the religion of Is-
rael ? Is the narrative of the impious race and of their
overthrow by the deluge at bottom the Greek story of the
gigantic oflfspring of heaven and earth revolting against
the gods and cast into the depths of the sea in punish-
ment ? No ; for a part of the Hebrew narrative, it may
be said at once, is not a myth ; the deluge is an histori-
cal fact. The sequel being history — and the narrative of
the flood is evidently regarded as the sequel by the
author of Genesis — the former narrative is not likely to
THE SONS OF GOD 109
have been a myth trimmed and adjusted to fit into the
historical event. And as to the former part, the general
Babylonian tradition, as will be shown in the chapter on
the tower of Babel, did not look upon the persons de-
stroyed by the flood as gigantic offspring of heaven and
earth.. A broader answer is given by Lenormant. "This
myth," says Lenormant, speaking of the Greek story of
the battle of the giants, "is exclusively naturalistic.
These earth-born giants remain absolutely foreign to hu-
manity, and continue to be solely the representatives of
the forces of nature, no serious mythology ever having
entertained the idea of associating the Gigantomachy with
the cycle of traditions at the beginnings of human his-
tory" (Origines, p. 359 seq., Eng. Tr., 360).
Lenormant is more inclined to see the counterpart of
the Hebrew narrative in the Greek stories of the heroes,
" demigods born of the love of a god for a mortal woman
or of a goddess for a mortal man." This is going far
afield. The tales of the heroes are Greek, not Semitic.
They do not accord with the spirit of early Babylonian
mythology as known from the cuneiform inscriptions at
present accessible and from accredited Babylonian his-
torians who wrote their country's history in Greek. Li
Babylonian mythology, deities had spouses ; but these
consorts were divine and their offspring were gods.
Ishtar endeavored to fascinate men, but human progeny
did not result. Native Babylonian mythology has thus
far failed to tell of a god entering into amorous union
with a mortal woman and begetting " a mighty man, a
man of renown " who was on earth in the days of old. ^
The present outlook is not favorable to the discovery of
any such tale, much less of a host of such stories.
^ The remarks of Professor Sayce in regard to the origin of Sargon of Agade
have not been overlooked, but they are fiction of the Englishman's own devis-
ing (Hibbert Lectnres, p. 37). The custom alluded to by Herodotus (i,
181 and 182) was, of course, a priestly arrangement.
xn
THE DELUGE
In the autumn of 1872 Mr. George Smith, while at
work in the British Museum examining the clay tablets
which had been exhumed at Nineveh, read, on a large
fragment which he picked up, the words : " The moun-
tain of Nizir stopped the ship. I sent forth a dove and
it left. The dove went and turned, and a resting-place it
did not find, and it returned." Perceiving at once the
resemblance to the story of Noah, he began a search to
find the remainder of the tale — a search which he prose-
cuted unweariedly for two years, not only among the
thousands of broken tablets in the Museum, but also,
through the liberality, first, of the proprietors of the
Daily Telegraph, then of the trustees of the Museum, on
the site of ancient Nineveh itself. Success crowned his
efforts. Two years after the discovery of the first frag-
ment he had secured portions of three distinct copies of
the tale, had established an almost complete text, and
had produced a fair translation. Since his lamented
death several additional fragments have happily come to
light to add to the completeness of the text and to assist
in its interpretation.
The story, as the tablet on which it is recorded itself
states, forms the eleventh episode of a natioual epic in
celebration of the deeds of Izdubar, or, as there is some
reason to pronounce the name, Gilgamesh, king of Erech.
The great hero of the tale, having been smitten with a
torturing disease on account of his insolence toward the
THE DELUGE 111
gods, resolved to seek his ancestor, Tsitnapishtim, who
had been translated to the gods, was then dwelling " at
the mouth of the rivers," and had knowledge of life and
death. After a long and toilsome journey he finally
reached the desired locality, and Tsitnapishtim stood
before him — a man of a generation long past, yet with
the freshness and vigor of youth. Astonished Izdubar
exclaimed : " How earnest thou, Tsitnapishtim, to see
life among the gods ? "
" I will open to yon, Izdubar,'* replied Tsitnapishtim, " the con-
cealed story, and also the oracle of the gods [with reference to the
cure of your disease] will I declare. You know the city of Surip-
pak, which stands on the Euphrates. That city was old when the
gods who dwelt therein were moved at heart to bring about a flood-
storm. God Anu was there among others, and Bel and Ninib.
The god Ea, however, deliberated with them, and he revealed unto
me their purpose [by means of a dream (1. 177) ]. * Man of Surip-
*pak, son of Ubaratutu,^ said he, 'tear down the house, build a
ship, despise property, and save life. Bring into the ship seed of
life of every kind.' I paid attention and said to god Ea : * O my
lord, what thou hast commanded I will respect by carrying out.*
On the morrow [preparations were begun]. On the fifth day I
laid the framework — 140 cubits its height, 140 cubits its extent
above. I divided its interior, I provided a rudder. Over the out-
side I poured three measures [sars] of bitumen and likewise over
the inside. When the ship was completed I filled it with all that
I possessed — with silver, gold, and seed of life of every kind. I
took on board all my men-servants and maid-servants, the cattle
and the beast of the field, and the artisans.
The sun-god set a time. 'When the sender of violent rain
causes a heavy rain to pour down in the evening, enter into the
ship and shut the door.* The set time came. He who sends vio-
lent rain caused a heavy rain to fall in the evening. The dawn-
ing of the day I feared, I trembled to behold the morning. I
entered the ship, closed tlie door to shut it in, and committed the
immense structure with its cargo to Puzur-Bel, the pilot.
As soon as the dawn appeared, a dark cloud ascended on the
horizon. In the midst of it the storm-god rolled the thunder.
112 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
Thd gods Nebo and Mardnk inarched on before, went as gaides
oyer hiU and dale ; the mighty pest-god tore loose the ship, the
god Ninib caused the streams to oyerflow their banks. The Anon-
naki, spirits of the sabterranean regions, lifted torches and made
the land flicker by the light. The storm-god raised billows which
reached to heaven. All light was tamed to darkness. Man saw
not his fellow, haman beings were not discerned by those in
heaven. *
The gods also were terrified at the flood-storm, sought refnge,
ascended to heaven, and crouched at the wall like a dog in his
lair. Then the goddess Ishtar, like a woman in travail, cried out
— she of beautiful voice called : ' Mankind which was is become
mud, the very evil which I foretold in the presence of the gods
and just as I foretold it to them. A storm for the annihilation of
my people I declared it would be. I brought forth men, but to what
purpose? Like fry of fish they fill the sea.* The gods over the
spirits of the subterranean regions wept with her, sitting bowed
in tears, their lips covered.
Six days and six nights ' wind, flood-storm, and rain prevailed ;
on the seventh day the rain abated ; the flood, the storm which
had writhed like a woman in travail, rested; the sea withdrew to
its bed, and the violent wind and the flood-storm ceased.
I looked on the sea, at the same time shouting ; but all men
were become mud. I opened a window ; and, as the light fell
upon my face, I shrank back and sat down weeping; over my
cheeks the tears coursed. I had looked on every side — a wide ex-
panse, sea.
A bit of land, however, rose to the height of twelve measures.
To the country of Nitsir the ship took its course. A mountain of
that land stranded the vessel and kept it from moving farther. On
the first day and on the second day Mount Nitsir held the ship,
on the third day and on the fourth day likewise, on the fifth and
sixth days likewise. When the seventh day came I released a
dove. The dove flew hither and thither; there was no resting-
place, so it returned. Next I sent forth a swallow. The swallow
also flew hither and thither and, as there was no resting place, re-
> Mentioning the nights as well as the days, as does the Hebrew narrative at
the same point. For text see Expositor, September, 1888, pp. 236-37 ; Haapt,
Beibrage, vol. i., 133; Jensen, Kosmologie, S. 430. Delitzsch, however, reads
^* six days and seven nights.*^ His text thas contains a formula often found
elsewhere, e.g.y 1. 188.
THE DELUGE 113
turned. Then I sent forth a raven. The raven flew away and,
when it saw that the waters had fallen, it approached, alighting
but not returning.^
I then sent forth [all the animals] to the four winds. I poured
out a libation, I made an offering on the summit of the mountain.
I set vessels by sevens, and underneath them spread sweet cane,
cedar, and herbs. The gods smelled the savor and like flies gath-
ered about the offerer.
When the goddess Ishtar arrived, she raised aloft the great oma-
ment which the god of the sky had made at her request. * By
the ornament of my neck, never will I forget ; I will think of
these days and to eternity not forget them. Let all the gods come
to the offering except Bel, for he inconsiderately caused the de-
luge and consigned my people to the judgment.* But Bel came
also ; and, when he saw the ship, was flUed with wrath against the
gods of the heavenly spirits. * What soul has escaped ? * he
cried ; ' not a man shall survive the judgment.' Then god Ninib
opened his mouth and spake to the valorous Bel : * Who else than
god Ea has done this thing? Ea knows surely every exorcism.'
Ea also opened his mouth and said to the valorous Bel : ' Thou,
valorous chieftain of the gods, so utterly without reflection hast
thou acted and caused the flood. On the sinner lay his sin, on
the evil-doer his evil deeds. Desist [from wrath] that he be not
cut off ; be gracious also. Instead of causing a flood-storm send
the lion and the hyena, famine and pestilence, and let them dimin-
ish men. And as for me, I did not reveal the purpose of the
great gods ; I sent Atrachasis a dream and he perceived the pur-
pose of the gods.'
Then Bel became reasonable, went up into the ship, grasped
my hand and led me up. He led up my wife also and made her
kneel at my side. Then turning to us he placed himself between
us and blessed us, saying : ' Heretofore Tsitnapishtim was a [mere]
man ; now let him and his wife be exalted to equality with the
gods, and let him dwell afar off at the mouth of the rivera.'
Thereupon he took me away and placed me afar off at the mouth of
the rivers." '
1 Or, the raven flew away and saw the abatement of the waters ; [thereupon]
he eatn, aUghtB carefully, bat does not return.
2 Such is essentially the cuneiform story. As here reproduced, it is slightly
abridged ; chiefly, however, by the omission of mutilated lines and of sen-
tences whose translation is still uncertain.
8
114 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
Berosos also wrote an account of a flood. According
to the extract which Eusebius made from the writings of
Alexander Poljhistor, the statement of the Babylonian
priest was to this effect :
'' The tenth king of the Chaldeans was called Xisnthms. In his
day happened a great delnge. The god Ghronos appeared to him
in a dream and said that on the fifteenth day of the month
Dsesins mankind would be destroyed by a flood ; bade him there-
fore to engrave a history of the beginning, progress, and conclu-
sion of all things and deposit it in Sippara, the city of the sun ; to
build a ship and embark with kith and kin ; to convey on board,
moreover, food and drink, and drive in animals both winged and
four-footed ; and having made all things ready, to sail away ; if
asked whither he is sailing, to say, * To the gods ; to pray for the
good of mankind.'
He did not neglect the admonition, but built a vessel five stadia
in length and two in breadth ; put into it everything which had
been ordered, and took on board his wife, his children, and his
kinsfolk.
The flood having occurred, as soon as it abated Xisuthrus sent
forth certain birds, but they, not finding food or any place where
they might alight, returned to him to the vessel. After some days '
Xisuthrus again dismissed the birds, and they now returned to the
vessel with their feet muddy. Having sent them forth the third
time, they came no more to the ship ; whence he judged that land
had appeared. He then pushed apart a portion of the covering '
of the vessel, and, seeing that the ship was stranded on a moun-
tain, left it with his wife and daughter and the pilot. He then
worshipped on the earth ; built an altar and sacrificed to the gods.
Afterward, with those who had come out of the vessel with him,
he disappeared.
When those with Xisuthrus did not return, they who had re-
mained in the vessel quitted it and sought him, calling him by
> According to the extract which Easebius takes from Abydenue, Berosna
Btated that the birds were sent forth on the third day after the cessation of
the rain, and the second time after other three days.
* Properly, stitohing ; that which is stitched or united ; hence a covering of
cloth or skin as being stitched together, in distinction from a roof of planks.
Cp. the Hebrew word in Gen. viii. 13, elsewhere used for the covering of skins
wherewith the tabernacle was roofed.
THE DELUGE 115
name. Xisnthms himself, indeed, appeared to them no more ;
but a voice came from the air admonishing them, as a thing nec-
essary, to be religions ; for on account of his piety he is on his way
to dwell with the gods, and his wife and daughter and the pilot
partake of the same honor. He told them, moreover, to return to
Babylonia, and, as decreed, recover the writings from Sippara and
give them to mankind ; moreover, that where they now are is the
land of Armenia. When they heard these words they offered sac-
rifices to the gods and journeyed on foot to Babylonia.
Of this ship, which was stranded in Armenia, a portion still re-
mains in the GordysBan Mountains of Armenia ; from it people get
bitumen, which they scratch off and use for averting evil.''
The question of the relation of the subject-matter of
the cuneiform tale to the story related by Berosus may
be dismissed with a word. Beyond question the two ac-
counts relate to the same event. Each tale originated
(as will presently be proved) in Babylonia, each tells of
a flood in Babylonia, each dates it in the earliest ages,
each describes similar occurrences and in similar order,
and in each the names of the hero and his father are ety-
mologically the same ; for Tsitnapishtim, it would ap-
pear from the tablet, was also called Atra-chasis, and as
Smith pointed out, Xisuthrus is but the Grecized form
of this cuneiform name, the component parts being
transposed.' The father of Xisuthrus was Otiartes or
Opartes, a name which corresponds to the cuneiform
Ubaratutu.
But the relation of the cuneiform account to the story
told by Berosus is of small interest compared with the
question of the bearing of the Babylonian tradition on
the criticism of the Hebrew narrative.
Preliminary to such an investigation it is necessary
to know the exact relation between the Babylonian and
Hebrew accounts. Is it quite certain that the flood re-
» TSBA., 1874, pp. 531-33; Haupt, Sintfluth, S. 23, Anm. 7; KAT«.. S. ftS
f . ; Jemten, Kosmologie, S. 885 f .
116 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
ported by the Babylonians is the deluge recorded in
Genesis ? What is the date and origin of the cuneiform
account? And what is the character of the cuneiform
story?
In regard to the identity of the flood described in the
two accounts, it is noticeable that the names of the lead-
ing persons are respectively different — so different as to
defy identification. The name Noah bears no outward
resemblance to Xisuthrus or Tsitnapishtim ; ^ and XJbara-
tutu, or translated into Assyrian, Kidin-Marduk — i. 6.,
Servant of god Marduk, none to Lamech. Neverthe-
less there is a striking coincidence ; according to Bero-
sus, Xisuthrus, the hero of the flood, was the tenth ante-
diluvian king of Chaldea ; and in the Bible Noah is the
tenth antediluvian patriarch.
The home of the hero may be the same according to
both accounts. The cuneiform tablet expressly states
that it was in Babylonia. Tsitnapishtim was a resident
of " Surippak, a city situated on the Euphrates,'* whose
patron deity was the Babylonian god Ea (II E. 60,
20 a, b). The same locality is indicated by Berosus,
who states that Xisuthrus was a Chaldean, the last of the
ten antediluvian kings of Chaldea, and the son of a king
from the city of Laranchae ; that before entering the ark
he buried a written record of the world's history in the
city of Sippara in Babylonia ; and that after the subsi-
dence of the waters, the ark having landed in Armenia,
he ordered his companions to return to Babylonia, which
they did, and again founded Babylon. In the Hebrew
account, as is well known, the residence of Noah at the
time of the flood is left indefinite. But since no migra-
tion of mankind from the neighborhood of the Tigris and
Euphrates (Gen. ii. 14) is recorded, the region watered
1 Though Uommel endeavors to find support for reading Nuch-napishtim,
PSBA., vol XV., 243
THE DELUGE 117
by these streams is suggested as still the place of his
abode ; likewise, if no stress be l^id on possible changes
in the face of the earth wrought by the flood, Noah's
use of pitch in the construction of the ark indicates the
bitumen pits of Babylonia. While therefore the He-
brew narrative makes no definite mention of Noah's
home, its indirect references harmonize with the state-
ments of the Babylonian story and admit the possibility
that Babylonia was the locality whence Noah sailed.
Each of the three narratives contains a description of
the vessel, the Hebrew and cuneiform records devoting
large space thereto, whereas Berosus mentions but few
features, and these for the most part ' incidentally. But
no two of these accounts agree in their report of the
dimensions of the ship. According to Berosus its
length was more than three thousand feet (almost five
times that of the Great Eastern), and its breadth
more than twelve hundred. On the cuneiform tablet (1.
24) the length is given as 600 cubits, at least the traces
which remain " lend themselves very well to the ideo-
gram for . . . 600." The width and height were
equal, each being 140 cubits.^ The Hebrew, on the
other hand, assigns but three hundred cubits to the
length, and makes the width fifty and the height thirty
cubits. In other words, if the same measure is to be
understood by cubit, the ship of Tsitnapishtim was twice
as long as the ark of Noah, more than twice as wide, and
four times as high. But in whatever respects the cunei-
form and Hebrew records may agree or disagree as to the
dimensions of the vessel, their description of its origin
and general structure seems to be similar. According to
each, the ship was built by divine direction and according
to a divinely furnished plan, was divided into compart-
ments (1. 59), provided with a door (1. 84 and 89) and
»Haupt, PAOS., 1888, p. Ixxxix.; BeitrJlge, vol. i., 124 ff.
118 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
window (1. 129), pitched within and without with bitumen
(1. 62, 63), and roofed over to protect it from the sea (1.
26 ; cp. Gen. viii. 13). And yet how different the ves-
sels still! The ark (to judge from the name) was ap-
parently a sort of raft, with sides and a covering which
was not wooden, and drifted about uncontrolled on the
waters ; whereas the cuneiform narrative represents the
vessel as a " ship " which a pilot guided on its course.
In this vessel certain men and beasts were to find
safety. But here again the Hebrew and Babylonian ac-
counts disagree. There is a marked difference in the
personnel. Noah went into the ark, and his sons and his
wife, and his sons'*wives with him (Gen. vii. 7), " that is,
eight souls '* (1 Pet. iii. 20) ; but Xisuthrus takes with
him, according to Berosus, not only his wife and chil-
dren, including a daughter, but also his kith and kin
generally, and in addition a pilot ; or, following the cu-
neiform report, his wife (of children not a word is said)
— his wife, his men-servants and maid-servants, the arti-
sans and a pilot. And yet there is agreement between
the Babylonian and Hebrew traditions. In both the
hero was authorized to save not himself alone, but his
household as well, and he was commanded to take on
board with him living creatures of every sort, or, in the
phraseology of the inscription, " seed of life of every
kind " (1. 22 and 79), in order to " keep seed alive " on the
eai-th (Gen. vii. 3 and line 21).
The two accounts evidently differ furthermore as to the
duration of the flood ; for while the Hebrew writer rep-
resents the storm as raging forty days, the cuneiform ac-
count allows but seven. Data for further comparison are
wanting.
The accounts also disagree as to the landing-place of
the vessel. The mountains of Ararat is the locality as-
signed by the Hebrew writer ; a name that of old — cer-
THE DELUGE ' 119
tainly as far back as the period of the Assyrian Empire
— ^belonged to the plain of the Araxes. But the vessel
of Tsitnapishtim stranded on Mt. Nitsir. In the ninth
century before Christ a mountain was known to the As-
syrians by this name. It stood east of the little Zab
Eiver ; 300 miles indeed south of Ararat, but yet in the
same mountainous region. Berosus fixes upon still a
third locality, one of the Gordyaean Mountains,^ which lie
east of the Euphrates, near the river, almost equally dis-
tant from Ararat and Nitsir, but still in the same general
region of country.
But not to pursue the minute comparison of the two
narratives further, it will suffice to exhibit the common
tradition. By reason of man's wickedness,^ God decreed
the destruction of all flesh, both man and beast, by a
flood. The divine purpose was revealed to one mortal,
the last of a line of ten worthies. This man was in-
structed to buUd a vessel of certain dimensions and ac-
cording to a divinely given plan, to pitch it within and
without with bitumen, to stock it with food, to take into
it with him his wife and family, and likewise living creat-
ures of every kind, not only domestic animals, but also
wild beasts and birds, in order " to keep seed alive upon
the face of the earth." The man did so. When the
advent of the deluge drew nigh, the man was divinely
warned now at length to gather his family and the ani-
mals together and to enter the ark, for the set time was at
hand. Again the man obeyed and entered the vessel.
The storm burst, the flood prevailed, and mankind was
destroyed. After some time the storm ceased, the waters
began to assuage, and the sea to withdraw to its bed.
The ship finally stranded on a mountain, and, round
» Now called the Djudi Mountains. According to Smith : " The present
tradition of the country places the mountain of the ark in the Jebel Djudi,
opposite Djezireh " (Assyrian Discoveries, p. 317).
* So apparently the BabyluniaUf 1. 170.
120 tJENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
about, the mountain tops became visible (order differs in
the two accounts). After waiting some days the man,
in order to inform himself of the state of the water,
began to send forth at intervals various birds (of which
both accounts mention the raven and the dove), and at
length learned that the waters were abated. The in-
mates of the vessel, both man and beast, having gone
forth, gratitude for deliverance was manifested by a thank-
offering. And the Lord (or, in the Babylonian phrase-
ology, the gods) smelled a sweet savor, and the Lord said :
" I will not again curse the ground any more for man's
sake, . . . neither shall all flesh be cut off any more
by the waters of a flood." According to the Babylonian
story, Ea pled with Bel in the assembly of the gods, say-
ing : " [Hereafter] on the sinner lay his sin, on the evil-
doer his evil deeds. . . . Listead of causing a flood,
send the lion and the hyena, famine and pestilence, and
let them diminish men."
Here, then, are the facts, and they admit of but one
conclusion. Stated in a twofold manner this is :
1. The theme of the two accounts is the same ; the
cuneiform and the Hebrew records describe the same
event.
2. The Hebrew narrative, at least as a whole, has not
been derived from the cuneiform ; the accounts are inde-
pendent save in their common origin. For, be it ob-
served, the Hebrew story is not simply the cuneiform tale
stripped of its polytheism, but a variant version ; for even
after the removal of the polytheistic elements the stories
conflict. Many of the discrepancies have already been
pointed out. It may be added that the accounts are
notably at variance in the picturesque incident of the
birds, as to their number, their kind, and the actions by
which they furnished a clew to the condition of the
waters.
THE DELUGE 121
Furthermore, no features of the Hebrew narrative were
learned from the cuneiform tale in the time of the exile,
and modified to harmonize with other Israelitish tradi-
tions ; for, as will presently be shown, every incident of
the Hebrew story was current in Israel before the exile.
Antiquity belongs even to the variant portions. There
certainly, therefore, lie before us two independently
transmitted traditions of the same event.
With much less argumentation the date and origin of
the cuneiform account may be established. It belongs,
even in its present form, to a period earlier, and proba-
bly very much earlier, than the seventh century before
Christ. The colophon impressed on the clay states that
the tablet was the property of king Ashurbanipal (AL^,
S. 109, Z. 295). This monarch reigned over Assyria from
668 to 626 before Christ. It is furthermore declared to
be a copy of an older tablet (Z. 293) ; but the date of the
original is not stated, and cannot be definitely deter-
mined. The great epic of Izdubar, of which the story
of the deluge is an episode, originated in Babylonia;
for the scenes are laid in that land. How early the tale
existed there in the form in which it appears on the
tablet remains uncertain. But the essentials of the tale
were current centuries before AshurbanipaFs day. The
appearance of Izdubar in engravings on gems and sig-
net cylinders of the early Chaldean period, two or three
thousand years before Christ, indicates this ; and for the
existence of the story of the deluge in special, testimony
is afforded by an ancient name of the city of Surippak,
where Tsitnapishtim, the hero 6f the flood and builder of
the vessel, lived. It is called Ship-town (I E., 46, 1), a
name which appears on monuments of the sixteenth cen-
tury before Christ and earlier (Smith, TSBA., 1874, p.
589 ; Assyr. Disc, p. 212). As confirmatory testimony it
may be mentioned that the god Ea, who revealed to Tsit-
122 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
napishtim the coming flood, and ordered him to bnild the
yessel, and protected him and his companions from the
anger of Bel, was worshipped in this Ship-town as a pa-
tron deity of the city (II R 60, 21).
The story of the flood, then, as told on the cuneiform
tablet of the seventh century before Christ, was carried
to Assyria from Babylonia, and in its essential features
is traceable to the early Chaldean period.
It still reodains to notice the character of the cuneiform
account. While it has mythol(^cal features it is not
a myth. A myth is an imaginary tale, which gener-
ally has some reference more or less remote to physical
phenomena, but which has no other foundation in fact ;
the Babylonian story relates history.
For its historical character may be said : 1. Apart from
its polytheism the Babylonian tale is credible. It de-
scribes a physical disturbance for which the alluyial plain
of Babylonia is adapted (Suss, Die Sintfluth), and nar-
rates an escape which in itself is probable. 2. The an-
cient Semitic peoples, both. Hebrew and Babylonian, re-
garded the story of a flood, whereby all men except one
family were destroyed, as historically true. They refer
to it as a crisis in history. The Hebrews, and in portions
of their writings which the divisive critics declare to be
pre-exilic, describe it as a turning-point in human affairs,
the beginning of a new race. Berosus devoted the second
book of his Babylonian history to the ten antediluvian
kings of the Chaldeans, considering the flood to mark the
close of the first period of the history of mankind. Ashur-
banipal refers to inscriptions " of the time before the
flood" (Lehmann, Shamash-shumukin, Inscription 13,
col. I., 18) ; and an Assyrian scribe, recording names of
ancient kings, remarks concerning certain of them that
they are ** kings which were after the flood" (V E., 44,
col. I., 20). 3. Confii-mation of the historical character
THE DELUGE 123
of the Semitic tradition is aflforded by the existence of
similar stories among other races ; of special importance
being the Aryan tradition in India to the eflfect that a
man, saved from the waters of a world-wide deluge in a
vessel which finally landed on a northern mountain, be-
came the progenitor of the new race of men. 4. It is
improbable that without such a catastrophe a tale should
arise of such extensive influence upon human thought.
For reasons such as these, it is almost universally recog-
nized that a foundation of fact underlies the Semitic
story of the flood.
But while the cuneiform account treats of an historical
event, it yet elaborates facts into marvels, ceasing to be
history and becoming legend. Nevertheless the legen-
dary element is small. Expunge the mythological lan-
guage, and a tale remains in the main soberly told.
The results thus far yielded by the discussion are that
the cuneiform account is a legend ; a legend which orig-
inated in Babylonia an unknown length of time before
the seventh century before Christ, and in its funda-
mental features goes back to hoary antiquity ; a legend,
furthermore, which treats of the same event as the He-
brew record. It is now pertinent to inquire what light
this Babylonian story throws upon the related Hebrew
narrative.
The divisive critics affirm, as is well known, that two
accounts are interwoven in the Hebrew narrative of the
flood, of which one antedates and the other postdates
the exile. The critics essentially agree among themselves
as to which of the two component tales each several part
of the composite story belongs ; and they agree also that
the existence of two component tales is established by
difference of style, repetitions, contradictions, anachro-
nisms. Before seeking light on this special question from
the cuneiform account, it is worth the effort to obtain a
124 OENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
clear view of the contents of the tradition as it circulated
in pre-exilic Israel. All critics agree that certain inci-
dents related in the tradition of the flood were of old
current among the Hebrews. The Jehovist's version is
admittedly pre-exilic. The account of the ark's landing
and of the bow in the cloud are considered equally early
(Wellhausen, Proleg., S. 328-29). The only incidmt of
the Hebrew tale not yet accounted for is the introduc-
tory scene of the priestly post-exilic version, where the
command to build the ark is given, the reason for its con-
struction stated, and the plan furnished. But this inci-
dent, in itself and apart from the literary form in which
it is narrated, was naturally a part of the current tale ;
the command to build the ark logically belongs to a nar-
rative of the flood, and would scarcely have been want-
ing in the Israelitish tradition. The opening sentence of
chapter seven, a portion of the "mutilated" version of
the Jehovist, implies that this incident was also in the
early tradition current in Israel ; for it is improbable
that to the statement that the Lord determined to " de-
stroy man from the face of the ground, . . . but Noah
found grace in the eyes of the Lord " (vi. 7, 8), there was
abruptly added : " And the Lord said unto Noah, ' Come,
thou, and all thy house into the ark.' " The wording of
this sentence seems to imply that the Jehovist's narra-
tive in its complete form had previously mentioned a
command to build an ark, and contained some descrip-
tion of it. The evidence is strong that, while the Jeho-
vist's account is admittedly pre-exilic, all the additional
incidents found in the priestly version were likewise
known in Israel before the exile, and probably included
in the Jehovist's narrative itself. The story of the flood
may have been repeated by the Israelites, as by people
of to-day, in a variety of forms and in diverse literary
style ; but however that may be, the Hebrew record, not
THE DELUGE 126
as parcelled out to diflferent writers, but only in its pres-
ent so-called composite form, tells all the incidents of the
flood as knovm of old in Israel.
Furthermore, the Hebrew record in its present form
corresponds, except in the one matter of the rainbow,
incident by incident with the cuneiform account. The
incidents of the Hebrew tale were known in pre-exQic
times, and the cuneiform record dates in its present
form from a period anterior to the seventh century.
Here, then, is evidence that the tradition of the flood had
a definite content before the separation of the two peo-
ples ; evidence also that the incidents of the Hebrew tale
were not of Israelitish invention but belonged to the
primitive tradition ; evidence that the story, with its
present material and present arrangement, is essentially
the old tale as it came in with the Hebrew migration and
as it lived from generation to generation in the mouth of
the people.
It may be added that such details of description as
the mention of bitumen, of periods of seven days, and of
altar and sacrifice are also appropriate in a Babylonian
tradition as early as the time of the Hebrew migration ;
that "the boundary line between clean and unclean ani-
mals is marked bv nature," and their classification in a
general way, according to this principle, is admitted by
critics to have existed before Moses ; that as for the olive,
while it has never been known as a tree of the Babylo-
nian plain, Strabo testified to its occurrence in Armenia ;
it is supposed to be indigenous in Northern India and
other temperate Asiatic regions (Marsh, in Johnson's
Cyclopaedia) ; in its varieties it is now found " from the
basin of the Mediterranean to . . . New Zealand ; "
and "the wild olive extends eastward to the Caspian,
while, locally, it occurs in Afghanistan " (Encycl. Britan.).
Not only, then, is there evidence that all the incidents of
126 OENKSIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
the flood found in the present Hebrew record were fa-
miliar to the Hebrew emigrants, but there is justification
for the assumption that the salient features of the pres-
ent description also existed in their day.
Notwithstanding the evidence that all the incidents of
the Hebrew account were current of old in Israel and
that even the details of description might appropriately
appear in the narrative as early as the days of Moses, it
is held that two accounts of the same event are inter-
woven in the present record and are distinguished from
each other by style, by repetitions, and by contradictions.
The modem theory of division is not restricted to the
flood episode, but embraces a large portion of the Old
Testament ; it is only in regard to the narrative of the
deluge, however, that a voice comes from remote antiqui-
ty to pronounce on the criteria and results of modem
criticism. All the more attentively, therefore, let that
voice be heard.
The divisive critics assert that the storm which pro-
duced the deluge is described twice in two successive
verses of the seventh chapter. It is there written : " The
same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken
up, and the windows of heaven were opened; and the
rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights." It
is urged that here two literary styles are apparent : one
vivid and poetical, the other the calm recital of prose ; that
the descriptions are furthermore contradictory, the one
representing the deluge as caused by rain only, the other
by the outburst of subterranean waters also. An answer
to this argument is not far to seek. No ordinary rain of
forty days caused the flood ; the water poured from the
clouds, streams overflowed their banks, the sea, dis-
turbed perhaps by earthquakes, rolled its waves upon
the land. To tell this tale it docs not suflSce to speak of
a rain. Adequate description requires the writer to say,
THE DELUGE 127
using oriental imagery, that the windows of heaven were
opened and the fountains of the great deep broken up.
To tell how long the storm lasted, speaking no longer as
a spectator, but as a statistician, he adds : " And the
storm was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
The cuneiform tale confirms this view, utterly depriv-
ing the critical argument of force. Describing the rag-
ing of the storm as a spectator, the Babylonian writer is
picturesque and vivid. **As soon as the dawn appeared,
a dark cloud ascended on the horizon. In the midst of
it the storm-god rolled the thunder. The gods Nebo
and Marduk marched on before, went as guides over hill
and dale ; the mighty pest-god tore loose the ship ; the
god Ninib caused the streams to overflow their banks ;
the Anunnaki lifted torches and made the land to flicker ;
the storm-god raised billows which reached to heaven.
All light was turned to darkness ; man saw not his fellow,
human beings were not discerned by those in heaven."
This is the language of enthusiasm and poetry. But
when the narrator comes to state how long the storm
lasted, he adopts a very diflferent style of speech, saying :
"Six days and six nights wind, storm, and rain pre-
vailed; on the seventh day the rain abated, the storm
which had struggled like a woman in travail, rested ; the
sea withdrew to its bed, the violent wind and the flood-
storm ceased."
The cuneiform account does not disprove the theory
that two narratives are combined in the Hebrew record
of the flood, but it shows that a method employed to dis-
tinguish the documents is precarious. In the only case
where the method can be tested, it fails. Diflference of
style is not an infallible evidence of diversity of docu-
ment.
It is contended, however, that throughout the He-
brew account two contradictory conceptions of the flood
128 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
are represented. Again the cuneiform tale offers a sug-
gestive parallel. In the Hebrew record, the first men-
tion of the deluge is in the portion ascribed to the priestly
writer ; God forewarns Noah that a destructive flood of
waters is impending, but reveals not whether by rain or
by tidal wave or by both. In the cuneiform tale, the ap-
proaching destruction of man is foretold, and Tsitnapish-
tim bidden to build a boat. The catastrophe accordingly
would be wrought by a flood of water ; but whether in the
form of rain from heaven, or freshet from the northern
mountains, or inflowing sea is not disclosed. But when
the set time draws nigh, the prophecy becomes definite
and foretells rain. God warns Noah to enter the ark —
the other writer, according to the divisive critics, relates
this — saying : " Yet seven days and I will cause it to rain
upon the earth." Likewise the cuneiform account (a
change of authorship is not thought necessary), as the
time approaches, becomes definite. " When the sender
of violent rain causes rain to pour down in the evening,
enter into the boat." When the storm breaks both writ-
ers, as already shown, become vivid in language, using fa-
miliar imagery. Finally in retrospect, according to the
Hebrew record, God promises not to again cut off all
flesh by the waters of a flood ; while, according to the in-
scription, the god Ea pleads that another such storm
may not again destroy mankind. Surely, in view of the
absolute similarity which obtains between the cuneiform
inscription and the Hebrew record, in their description
of the flood, no critic is authorized to say that the lan-
guage of the Hebrew record is on this subject contradic-
tory, and indicative of two writers with different concep-
tions.
The testimony of the cuneiform tale is, indeed, insuffi-
cient to disprove the theory that the narrative of the
flood is a compilation out of different documents. But
THE DELUGE 129
the argument for two documents which is based on diflfer-
ence of style is proven to be of doubtful value ; for in
one important test case it is found on evidence from
antiquity to be invalid and untrue. And the claim that
the extracts from the reputed documents are contradic-
tory and therefore unhistorical is proven false at every
point where it can be tested by antiquity. The charge
of discrepancy has been recklessly made and is ground-
less.
This ancient testimony in regard to the Hebrew rec-
ord of the flood has wider reach than that narrative.
It has important bearing upon fundamental principles
of the divisive criticism, and it calls in question the
correctness of the application of these principles in the
past.
The exegetical importance of the Babylonian tale is
small, so far as it concerns words and phrases, its legend-
ary character, as well as the tendency sometimes appar-
ent in it to embellishment, rendering it an untrustworthy
guide. Occasionally, however, it is suggestive, as when
it fixes upon a " mountain of the land Nitsir," and not
upon " the mountains of Ararat," as the landing-place of
the ark ; for the mountain known in Ashumatsirpal's day
as Nitsir stood hard by the district called TJrtu. Origi-
nally Hebrew and Babylonian accounts were one, and of
course indicated the same locality ; the question is justly
raised whether the like-sounding words Urartu (Ararat)
and TJrtu (the t in each is teth) have not afterward be-
come confounded.
The fact, however, now clearly apparent that the He-
brew narrative is a tradition transmitted through the
fathers is of vast exegetical importance ; for it materially
aids in determining the scope of thought. The narrative
originated in the account of eye-witnesses and has been
handed down as other traditions have been. Its lan-
9
130 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
guage is, of course, to be understood in the sense it bore
to men centuries before the days of Moses ; and it must
not for one moment be forgotten that the men of that age
Iiad a totally different conception of the world from what
we have, and meant a totally different thing by the ex-
pression " the whole world " from what we would mean.
What do these men of olden time, who were eye-witnesses
of the catastrophe and whose description of the event
was determined by their conception of the world, say of
the extent of the flood ? Those who escaped the destruc-
tion told their children after them that God revealed the
coming of this flood to a certain man and warned him to
provide a vessel for the saving of his house, directing him
to take every kind of land animals with him into the ves-
sel for the preservation of brute life, announcing that the
waters were sent to blot out man from under heaven be-
cause of his aboimding iniquity, and that boasts and rep-
tiles were to be involved in the destruction (vi. 19, P, and
vii. 4, J.). The survivors related also that the man who
had been forewarned heeded the admonition and built the
ark. The flood came. During its supremacy, according
to the testimony of these eye-witnesses, all the high moun-
tains that were under the whole heaven — i.e., which were
within man's changing horizon — were covered and that
all flesh wherein was the breath of life, man and cattle
and creeping thing, perished, and that they alone who
were in the ark escaped. They bore witness to what they
had seen. Their later observation and the experience of
their descendants who transmitted the tradition confirmed
the impression first made of the destruction of life, for
as they journeyed they found the earth empty. The
deluge had accomplished the purpose of God.
No testimony for or against a universal deluge is con-
tained in the tradition, either in its Babylonian or Hebrew
transmission, unless it be involved in the announced pur-
THE DELUGE 131
pose of God to destroy man whom he had created from
the face of the gi'ound, both man and beast and creeping
thing and fowl of the air.^ Even this announcement is
not testimony to a universal deluge, unless animals were
distributed over all parts of the globe. Moreover the
language which is used to announce the divine purpose
must not be interpreted as meaning more than the sense
which it conveyed to the people to whom it was addressed.
It must be interpreted also in the light of the prob-
able meaning which Noah attached to the command to
him to take every sort of animals with him into the ark
and especially to the command to take all food that is
eaten; for he certainly did not attempt to penetrate
distant unexplored regions of the earth in order to dis-
cover imknown animals and secure for them their own
peculiar and indispensable food. Finally the language
must be interpreted without violence to the require-
ments of passages like Joel iii. 1 ; John xii. 32 ; Dan.
vi. 25.
To the discussion of the Semitic tradition of the flood,
which has occupied the preceding pages, the chronology
of the Hebrew account is appended as the concluding
paragraph. The scheme is worthy of consideration be-
cause pf its uniform adherence to the data of the Hebrew
text, because of its constant employment of the method
used by the Hebrew writer, and because of the peculiar
interlocking of its results.
It appears from verses three and four of the eighth
chapter compared with the seventh chapter and eleventh
verse that the months are reckoned at thirty days each,
and that the number of days which measure an interval
of time are obtained by subtracting the earlier terminal
date from the later or, vice versa, the later date is found
> Gen. ri. 7 ; doubtless equivalent to " man and with him beast, etc.** Com-
pare further vi. 13, 17 ; vii. 4 ; viii 21 ; ix. 10, 15.
132 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
by adding the given days to the earlier date. Employ-
ing this method strictly, the following chronology re-
sults:
vii. 4 and 10. Command to bboin embarkino the
ANIMALS, 2 mo. 10th day.
▼ii. 11. Bntbancb of Noau into the abk, and,
later in the day, bursting of the Btorm, 2 mo. 17th day.
vii. 13. Rain was upon the earth 40 days
and 40 nights, so that the
Bain ceased toward evening 3 mo. 27th day.
vii. 24. The waters prevailed on the earth
viii. 3*. 150 days, so that the
viii. 4. Abk stranded 7 mo. 17th day.
The waters decreased continually
until the
viii. 5. . Tops of the mountains webe seen 10 mo. 1st day.
After seeing the mountain tops,
viii. 6. Noah waited 40 days ; expecting that,
as the rain had fallen 40 days, the
waters would perhaps abate from the
ground in 40 days ; and then (or on the
following day) the
Raven Released, which returned not, 11 ma 11th (or
12th) day.
After 7 days (cp. "yet other," v.
10) a
viii 8 Dove bbleased, which returned, 11 mo. 18th (or
19th) day.
After yet other 7 days, the
viii. 10. Dove released, which returned with
an olive leaf. So Noah knew that the
waters were abated from off the earth. 11 mo. 25th (or
26th) day.
After yet other 7 days, a third time the
viii. 12. Dove released, which did not ret^^rn,
since by this time food and shelter
were to be found outside of the ark, 12 mo. 2d (or
8d) day.
Notwithstanding these favorable in-
dications, Noah did not leave the ark,
but waited for God's command. After
nearly a month's waiting, on New
Year's day,
viii. 18**. Noah removed the covering of the
yiii, 13«. ARK, and saw that the waters were
dried up and the face of the ground was
dried, l™o- iBtday.
THE DELUGE 133
But Noah still awaited €rod^ a bid-
ding, and eight weeks later, the earth
being dry, God gave the
viii. 14, 15. Command to go forth from thb ark, 2 mo. 27th day.
The results of the chronology are that the first day after
the terrific storm was the forty-ninth from the command
to embark the animals and the forty-second from the
entrance of Noah into the ark. The first day that dawned
bright with peace and with divine favor was a recurring
seventh day. The ark stranded in the middle of the
week, a date without significance at the time; but the
tops of the mountains were seen on the first day of the
tenth month, which was a recurring first day. The new
world, like the old, began, on the first day of a week.
Noah released the birds successively either on the re-
curring sixth day, in expectancy of the morrow, or on
the recurring seventh day itself. Noah removed the cov-
ering of the ark on the first day of the first month. It
was New Tear's day, but the expectancy of divine favor
may have been awakened by the fact that it was the re-
curring seventh day. But while his hopes were not dis-
appointed, for the waters were dried, he yet awaits God's
command. Eight weeks later, on the recurring seventh
day, Noah is bidden to disembark. It was a day of di-
vine favor and a day of release to the captive.^
Some of these recollections are preserved in the other
transmissions. Josephus, in his slightly variant version,
also measures the period from the mission of the birds
to the release of the animals from the ark by sevens,
though he does it in a different manner from the biblical
narrator. The cuneiform account preserves the memo-
ries that the premonitory storm burst in the evening,
that the tempest ceased on the seventh day, that a period
> In both narratives out of which the Hebrew record is said to be composed,
the week plays a part, whether the two documents be combined or separated.
In J., vii., 4 and 10, viii., 6-12 ; in P., vii., 11, compared with viii., 5, 13", 14.
134 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
equal to the duration of the rain was allowed to elapse
after the stranding of the ark before essay was made
with the birds to ascertain whether the waters had dis-
appeared, that the dove was sent forth on a seventh day,
and probably that the exit from the ark took place on a
seventh day ; though, as to the last matter, the writer
transmits the tradition of his own people ambiguously
and leaves his statement in such a form that it might be
understood as meaning that the several missions of the
birds and the disembarking of the inmates of the ark
took place within the same twenty-four hours.
XIII
THE MIGHTY HUNTER
The tenth chapter of Genesis is a table of the nations
of the ancient world. It is a bare catalogue of peoples
and communities in the form of a genealogy ; based in
part on political and geographical relations, but chiefly
on the kinship of the included nations.
In the midst of this barren enumeration of names and
affinities, a person full of life and action and human
passion appears, who would be a notable figure in the
picture of any age, but who stands out in sharper relief
against the unembellished background. Nimrod was more
than a mere link in the genealogical chain, serving only
to mediate the succession ; he made history. " He began
to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter
before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was
Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh in the land of
Shinar."
A counterpart to Nimrod exists in the person of the
great hero of early Babylonian story, who is commonly
known as Izdubar, or, as there is reason to pronounce the
name, Gilgamesh. The history of the two celebrities is
strikingly similar. Both were kings who ruled in the
land of Shinar and numbered Erech among their cities.
Both lived after the flood and traced their descent from
the hero of that event. Both were noted hunters ; Izdu-
bar being a slayer of wild beasts, whose encounters with
animals, not less than his exploits in war, were embodied
in a poem and formed a favorite subject for engraver and
THE MIGHTY HUNTER 137
•
sculptor. But while the comparison of Izdubar and
Nimrod is interesting, their identity has not been proven.^
In view of the possibility of such identity, however,
the person of Izdubar requires a brief notice. The story
> For nearly ten years the champion oi the identification of Izdubar with
Nimrod has been Professor Hommel. His argument has been presented be-
fore the Society of Biblical Archeeology and is published in its Proceedings,
vol. viii. , 119 ; XV. , 291 ; x vi. , 13. Stated briefly, the argument is that the patron
deity of Izdubar was Lugal-turda ; and that the wife of this god was Nin-gul, a
goddess who is declared to be identical with the goddess Nin-gal, ''''gid being
only a somewhat later pronunciation of gal, great : " but the goddess Nin-gal
was the wife of the moon-god Sin ; accordingly the moon-god Sin is one and
the same deity with Lugal-turda, the god of Izdubar. Again, the end of two
lines of a bilingual text remains which read
. . . . Sin lord of x-y-bar-ra
.... Sin lord of god namra tsit.
On another tablet the similar statement is found,
Sin lord of god x-y-bar-ra
Sin lord of namra tsit.
Hommel afi&rms that the character indicated by x, which is a single horizon-
tal wedge, has the value gi which belongs to the upright wedge. The charac-
ter which is represented by y was frequently used by the Assyrians as ideo-
gram for their word isJidu^ '* foundation." Here then is a rebus : the Ninevite
scribes have playfully employed the Assyrian equivalent of a sign when writ-
ing a Babylonian text ; and they intended the upper line to be rendered *' Sin,
lord of Gi-ishdu-bar-ra." But further, the moon-god Sin was, as already argued,
the god of Izdubar, or Gishdubar, as Hommel would read the name ; and the
lord of Gi-ishdu-bar-ra is, according to the bilingual inscriptions just quoted,
the lord of namra tsit : from which it follows that Izdubar or Gishdubar equals
Namratsit or Nimrod. The argument rests, in the first place, on the assump-
tion that Nin-gal and Nin-gul are identical, for which there is not the shadow
of proof. It also requires the second sign in the name Izdubar to be pro-
nounced (2m, as indeed is currently done ; though, so far as appears, the den-
tal is not properly daleth, but teth or tau. As to the word or phrase namra-
tsit, it is found elsewhere with the context (Sin) [Sha] namrat tsitka (Strassm
Alph. Verzeich., 8068), means *' bright as to rising" (Delitzsch), and, accord-
ing to Jensen, is an epithet of the new moon. The god Sin is the lord
whose rising is bright, or the god Sin is lord of the new moon. It may be
added that the identification proposed by Hommel is rejected by Delitzsch
and Jensen.
A question distinct from this is interwoven by Professor Hommel in his
later articles. Izdubar equals Gilgamesh, according to the fragment of a tablet
discovered by Mr. Pinches. Gilgamish (with mish for mesh), Hommel thinks,
*^was originally Gibil-gamish." In VB. 80, 6f, is found the divine name
Gi(sh)-bil-ga-mish. To this god or deified man people in remote antiquity
I
138 GENESIS AN1> SEMITIC TBADITION
of which he is the hero is an elaborate legend. The tale
is divided into twelve cantos, whose incidents have been
thought to follow the course of the sun through the zo-
diac, though Izdubar himself is unquestionably distin-
guished from the sun. Izdubar's " mother was the god-
dess Aruru" (Jeremias, Izdubar-Nimrod, S. 6). His
own name is preceded by the determinative for god,
which probably indicates that he was regarded as a
deity ; and a prayer is extant which was offered to him
for health. These things, however, must not obscure the
fact that Izdubar is distinctly a man and that back of
the innumerable legendary details of the story there is a
''historical background." He is indeed said to have
been begotten or built by the goddess Aruru ; but this
expression must be understood in the same sense as
the similar one is when it is said that Nebuchadnezzar
was begotten by the god Marduk, and Ashurbanipal
by Ashur and Sin, who created or built each of these
kings " in the womb of his mother " (India House, col.
i., 23-24; V. R., i., 3-5). Izdubar has the divine de-
terminative before his name, and was in a sense deified ;
but in this respect he does not differ from other early
Babylonian kings whose historical existence is estab-
• lished. Sargon of Agade, for example, and his son Na-
ram-Sin appear with the determinative for god before
their names ; and Tsitnapishtim, the hero of the flood,
ascribed the building of Erech^s ancient wall, ancienb even in those early days.
Erech was the capital of Izdnbar's kingdom. These passages Hommel contends
mast govern the reading and restoration of the mutilated text quoted by Jen-
sen (Kosmologie, S. 386). Accordingly instead of the pronunciation and res-
toration Gish-tu-bar-[r]a — Gish-ti-i[-bir ? ?], Hommel reads Gish-du-bar-[r]a
— Gi-bil-g[a-mish].
The latter argument contains an element of plausibility. If correct, it
proves that the name which George Smith provisionally read Izdubar repre-
sents the name GU-or Gibilgamish, and that in the hoary past he was regarded
as builder of an ancient wall of Erech. It does not, however, identify Izdu-
bar with Kimrod. The question of identity remains precisely where it was
before.
THE MIGHTY HUNTER 139
is, in one instance, deified in the same manner.^ Like a
man, Izdubar made a thank-oflfering to heaven for vic-
tory ; like a man, he was a woi*shipper of the gods, his
especial protector being the patron deity of the town
Marad. He was a descendant of the hero of the flood,
an ancestor who is expressly called a man and referred
to as a mortal. Izdnbar himself is repeatedly denomi-
nated a man ; and he was smitten with disease, was sub-
ject to death, obtained but lost an herb which had vir^
tue to rejuvenate him. He was a noted hunter, and a
warrior who by a deed of valor freed Babylonia from
Elamite rule, and in return was rewarded with the throne
of Erech. Though prayer is addressed to " god Izdu-
bar," it is to him as judge who acts ** like a god," and as
one to whom " the sun-god has intrusted a sceptre and
judicial decision." * Prayer was made to him, but it
would seem to have been done after his apotheosis ; just
as it is offered to his ancestor Tsitnapishtim, who had
been translated to dwell with the gods (IV K. 59, col.
iv., 8). As to the setting of the story in which Izdubar
is the hero, it is historical ; the eleventh canto is the his-
tory of the flood, decked out though it is with legendary
embellishments ; and the third, fourth, and fifth cantos,
which form the body of the tale and contain the essen-
tial parts of the career of Izdubar, relate to the suc-
cessful revolt of the people of the plain against their
Elamite oppressors and the subsequent foimdation of a
Babylonian kingdom. The available facts thus indicate
that Izdubar was a man.
* Sargon with determinative PSBA., vi, 12, without vi. 11, IH R. 4, No. 7,
1, IV R. 34, Obv. 1 ; Naram-Sin with TSBA., v. 442, without I R. 8, No. viL,
IV R. 34, Rev. 11 ; Tsitnapishtim with IV R. 59, col. iv., 8. Compare further,
but with caution, Dungi with I R. 2, No. ii., 1 and 4, without 2 and 3, with
both personal and divine determinative I R. 68, coL i., 10 (which of course
makes it probable that the name is compound, having as its first constituent
god Bau); Gamil-Sin with IV R. 35, No. 4 ; Amar-Sin with I R 3, xii., and
5, xix ; Ishmi-Dagan with I R. 2, v. and vi. ; Rim-Sin with I R. 3, x. ; Nur-
Ramman with I R. 2, iv.
ANCIENT BABYLONIAN TOWER IN STAGSa
XIV
THE TOWEE OF BABEL
The translation of a cuneiform text was published by
Smith in his Chaldean Account of Genesis, and afterwards
by Boscawen in the fifth volume of the Transactions of
the Society of Biblical Archaeology under the title of the
" legend of the tower of Babel." Although this title was
bestowed upon it, the inscription was not put forward by
either of these writers with confidence as a tradition akin
to the Hebrew narrative, and its right to the title has
been questioned by other scholars (Delitzsch, Bezold).
It is, however, still quoted as authority by Professor
Sayce in his Hibbert Lectures. He says: The text
"gives us, as I believe, the Babylonian version of the
building of the tower of Babel " (p. 406).
The tablet is badly mutilated. Only two lines are in-
tact, it would seem, and some are so far gone as to leave
but a single word ; and a gap exists in the middle of the
story where the tablet has been broken away entirely.
Smith's belief that the text might have reference to the
incident at Babel was based on a conjectural version.
He ventured to translate thus : " He confounded their
speech. Their strong place (tower) all the day they
founded ; to their strong place in the night entirely he
made an end. In his anger also word thus he poured
out : to scatter abroad he set his face " (cp. lines 7 and
16-19 below). Smith's version is now known to be in-
correct; and the text has no obvious reference to the
building of the tower of Babel or any other tower, and
143 GENESI8 AND SEMITIC TRADITION
no likeness to the narrative in Genesis. The resemblance
to the Hebrew account, which Professor Sayce discovers,
appears only when the lacunae have been filled by his fer-
tile imagination.
The fragments of the inscription are exhibited in the
following translation in the position which they occupy
on the tablet, in order that the reader may judge for
himself what the subject of the story is. In lack of a
context to determine the meaning of ambiguous gram-
matical forms, preference is given in doubtful cases to
the rendering adopted by Professor Sayce.
** his . . . his heart was hostile
the father of all the gods thej hated
his . . . his heart was hostile
Babylon he was hurrying to seize ^
and great were mingling* the monnd
• Babylon he was hnrrying to seize*
and great were mingling* the monnd
God Lugal-du-azaga' made lamentation (?) ....
In front of him god Ann
To god Ann his father
Because his heart
Who was bearer of intelligence (?)
In those days
? ? . :
Goddess Damkina
. . . their [feminine] . . all the days he troubled (?)
During their [feminine] lamentation in bed
he did not end distress
In his wrath he overthrows secret counsel
. . . his . . . mingle designs (?) his face he set
. . gave a command (? ?) changed was their [masc] plan."
Although no record of the attempted building of the
tower at Babel and the confusion of tongues has been
1 The translation '* to seize," which is given by Professor Sayce, is consid-
ered by the writer to be impossible.
* The word is rather to be rendered " destroyed."
* The name means *^ king of the chamber of destiny."
THE TOWER OP BABEL 143
found in cuneiform literature, a tradition of such an
event was current outside of Israel, and was ascribed by
the transmitters of it to Babylonia. Whatever its origin,
it is worthy of notice. In his History of the Chaldeans,
Abydenus quoting Berosus, as is commonly believed,
says:
** There are some who say that the men who first arose [or, fol-
lowing a different text, the first of the earth-bom], having become
puffed up by reason of their strength and stature, and having de-
spised the gods in the imagination of being better than they, un-
dertook a lofty tower where Babylon now is. It was already near
heaven when the winds came to the aid of the gods and overthrew
the work upon the builders. The ruins of it are said to be Baby*
Ion. Hitherto men had been of one tongue, but now discordant
speech was sent upon them from the gods ; war also was begun
between Ohronos and Titan." *
Alexander Polyhistor quotes the Sibyl, whoever that
may have been,^ as saying :
" When all men spoke the same language, some of them built
an exceeding high tower in order to ascend into heaven. God,
however, having made winds to blow, thwarted them and gave
to each a language of his own ; wherefore the city was called
Babylon. After the flood, further. Titan and Prometheus were
bom ; at that time also Ohronos was warred upon by Titan." »
» Clause beginning ** war also " is not quoted by Cyril of Alexandria in his
citation of Abydenus.
« The Sibyls were ten in number. " The first was from the Persians, and of
her Nicanor made mention, who wrote the exploits of Alexander of Macedon.
. . . The fifth was of Erythraea, whom ApoUodorus of Erythraea affirms
to have been his own country-woman and that she foretold to the Greeks,
when they were setting out for Ilium, both that Troy was doomed to destmc-
tion and that Homer would write falsehoods. . . . She inserted her true
name in her verse, and predicted that she would be called Erythraean, though
she was bom at Babylon. . . . She is regarded among the others as more
celebrated and noble." (Lactantius, Divinee institutiones, L , vi).
* The last clause is not quoted by Synoellus in his extract from Alexander
Polyhistor, but is included in the citation as contained in the Armenian
Chronicle of Eusebiua The entire reference to Titan, Prometheus, and
144 OKNESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
Why should Chronos-Satum, Titan, and Prometheus
be mentioned in the same context with the tower at Ba-
bel ? Are these elements native or dp they betray the
assimilation of the Babylonian tradition to the Greek
myths ? * If they are native elements, what Babylonian
names are concealed behind the Greek forms ? When
Berosus speaks of Chronos-Satum, he means the Baby-
lonian deity Ea, as appears on comparing his account of
the flood with the cuneiform versionj and in the pas-
sages cited relating to the tower of Babel, where Chronos
is mentioned the Armenian Chronicle quite properly un-
derstands the god of that name to be intended and ren-
ders it accordingly. But who are meant by Titan and
Prometheus? They "were bom after the flood," and
between one of them and Chronos war raged.
These various questions are difficult to answer; but
whatever reply may be made to them, the kinship of
the tradition, so far as it relates to the tower and its
builders, with the Hebrew narrative is unmistakable.
That it is an independent tradition is seen in its state-
ment that the tower was destroyed, and that the winds
were employed in the work of destruction. Josephus
validly cites it from the mouth of the Sibyl as a voice
outside of Israel speaking of the event.
Chronos Ib lacking, perhaps because irrelevant, in the quotation of the Sibyl
by Josephus (Antiq., I., iv., 3) and by Cyril of Alexandria (contra Julianum,
Ub. I.).
1 According to the story as told by the Latin poet Enniiis (33d-169B.G.)i
Titan was a god, son of Gcejus and Vesta, and elder brother to Saturn. Al-
though the senior, he yielded the kingdom to Saturn on condition that he
raised no male children. Saturn violated the agreement ; and Titan, taking
with him his sons who are called Titans, made war upon his false brother and
imprisoned him. The truth of this history is taught by the Erythraean Sibyl,
who speaks almost the same things (Lactantius, Divinse institutiones, I., xiv.).
This is a different story from the tale which recounts how Zeus hurled the
Titans, the twelve children of Ouranos and Gaia, out of heaven into nether
darkness. See also Moses Chorenensis, I., c. 5, and Lenormant*s remarks,
Bcrose, p. 416 seq.
THE TOWER OF BABEL 145
A summary of the intervening events between the
flood and the erection of the tower at Babel is furnished
by a curious passage in Artapanus and a fragment from
HestisBus, which it will be seen may be put forward with
considerable confidence as representing Babylonian tradi-
tions. They supplement the Babylonian narrative of
history subsequent to the deluge, and serve for compari-
son with the corresponding Hebrew account. Artapanus
is speaking of Abraham and remarks that "in certain
anonymous writings we find Abraham tracing his lineage
to the giants who dwelt in Babylonia and who on account
of impiety were destroyed by the gods. One of them,
Bel, having escaped death, settled in Babylon, and having
built a tower lived in it, which was accordingly called
Bel from Bel the builder " (Eusebius, Prsep. evang., ix.,
420). The passage is full of errors. Bel was a god,
not as in the tale one of the giants ; the tower he occu-
pied in Babylon was not erected by himself, but was
built for his earthly abode by his worshippers and was
the chief temple of the city. But in spite of these mis-
conceptions, the story is based on genuine Babylo-
nian traditions : an impious race was destroyed by the
gods ; one notable person escaped ; Babylon was settled
by the saved and a tower erected there, which was occu-
pied by Bel. This odd distortion of Babylonian tradi-
tion is elucidated by a fragment of Hestiaeus. He says :
" Those of the priests who were saved took the sacred
vessels of the warlike Zeus [i.e., Bel]^ and came into
Senaar of Babylonia" (Josephus, Antiq., L, iv., 3 ; Euse-
1 Zens^Bel (Bcrosus B^Ao? '*ov Aia/uie0ep/uiT}i'evov<ri," and Herodotus, I., 181,
183) — Marduk. •EwoAto? Zevs recalls Quradu Bel, *'the valorous Bel" who
fignies in the story of the deluge (1. 14, 164, etc.), one of the triad Ann, Bel,
Ea. The brief passage from Hestiasus is an interesting example of the blend-
ing of Bel of the triad with Bel-Marduk, the chief deity of the Babylonians,
the establishment of whose worship in Babylonia is here attributed to the sur-
vivors of the flood.
146 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
bius, PrsBp. evang., xiv., 416). Bel is not regarded by
HestisBUS as a mortal who alone of his wicked fellows
escaped the anger of the gods, but is recognized as
himself a deity. It is some of his worshippers who were
delivered from the destruction ; those of the priests who
were saved brought his sacred vessels to the land of
Shinar. The confused story is falling into its proper
components. The Babylonian tradition of the flood ap-
pears : the wicked race of men was destroyed by the
gods; one favored individual with his retainers was
saved ; these survivors, exhorted by Xisuthrus-Noah
their leader, returned to Babylonia, and founded the
city and erected the tower of Babel.
But were the builders of the tower giants ? Abydenus
merely says that they were vain of their strength and
size, but Artapanus and Eupolemus ^ expressly call them
giants, and Cyril of Alexandria uses the same term in his
rendering of Abydenus. But whatever idea may have
gained currency in later times and in regions remote
from Babylonia, the Semitic tradition as it flowed
through native channels gives no intimation that the men
engaged in these enterprises and involved in these pun-
ishments were, in any true sense, gigantic. The offspring
of the mixed marriages [are described by the Hebrew
writer as men of might and renown ; but the generations
that proceeded from them, the race destroyed by the del-
uge, the persons saved, their descendants who under-
took to build the tower and were scattered throughout
1 ** Eapolemus in his book on the Jews of Assyria [Chaldea] says first the
city of Babylon was founded by those saved from the flood (they were giants) :
farther, they built the tower which is mentioned in history ; but this having
been overthrown by the intervention of God, the giants were scattered through-
out the whole world" (Ensebius, Praep. evang., ix., 418). Eupolemus is iden-
tified, rightly or wrongly, with the Jewish envoy of the same name who was
sent to Rome by Jndas Maccabseus about 161 B.O. (Frsep. evang., ix., 17).
Artapanus is supposed to have been an Alexandrian Jew living about a cen-
tury before Christ.
lEnrUAR AND THE LION.
ZIKtIIAH ANI> EABANl IN CONPI.ICT WITIl THE BUM. AND THE LIOM.
THE TOWER OF BABEL 147
the earth in consequence, are not distinguished as men
of unusual size or strength. On the contrary a man of
might like Nimrod is as worthy of note after the flood as
before it. And the same is true of the description of
these men of early times which is given by the native
cuneiform documents. It is not yet so complete as the
Hebrew record, but so far as it goes its testimony is to
the same effect as the Hebrew. The race destroyed by
the flood, Tsitnapishtim and his companions who were
saved, their descendants including even Izdubar, are not
mentioned as though gigantic. Izdubar indeed has co-
lossal proportions, many times larger than a lion, in the
sculpture which adorned the walls of Sargon's palace, and
occasionally elsewhere.^ A man who performed mighty
deeds of valor and was " perfect in strength," was, of
course, powerfully built and would naturally be repre-
sented as large. But even Izdubar, "the perfect in
strength " is commonly delineated no larger than human
in comparison with the beasts which he slays. The refer-
ence to the strength and size of the builders by Abydenus
and some other transmitters of the tradition may be due
to the influence of Greek myths and to the habit of re-
garding the men of the post-Trojan period as the degen-
erate sons of stalwart ancestors, not like Tydides who
" grasped in his hand a stone— a mighty deed— such as
two men, as men now are, would not avail to lift " (Hiad,
V. 302) ; or else, these Greek transmitters mean by their
words what Josephus means when he says that the build-
ers of the tower imagined their prosperity to be derived
from their own power, and adds that Nimrod their leader
was " a bold man and of great strength of hand."
» The size is largely determined by artiatio considerationa. In the mnral
Boulpturea of Sargon'a palace, Izdubar is standing beside colossal* bulla and
approximates them in size. Where the dado is narrower, the figures of Sar-
gon and his attendants are frequently over nine feet in height.
10
148 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION
The account of the tower of Babel which has been
transmitted by the Hebrews is a tradition. This fact
must govern interpretation. The survivors of the flood
and their descendants, as they journeyed up and down in
the earth, found no traces of other men. The eight per-
sons who were saved in the ark and their posterity consti-
tuted the world. Few in numbers at first, they increased,
until eventually, long after the time contemplated in the
tradition of the tower of Babel, they had spread over
Western Asia and into Europe and Africa, as their an-
cient tabulator could exhibit. This body of people in its
earlier period is what the tradition means by the world
(v. 1). For a considerable time after the flood " the
whole earth was of one speech and one language." But
it came to pass that man at length journeyed from, or in,
the East, moving either en masse or in a body sufl&ciently
large to be called "all the earth," and settled in the
land of Shinar.^ Doubtless they spoke the language they
had used in the country from which they migrated ; and
if they left some of their brethren in the old home, there
was still unity of speech among the now disjecta membra.
This body of men, moreover, whether coextensive with all
the descendants of Noah or only with that large part of
his posterity which through dim recollection or intercourse
remained in the knowledge of the settlers in Babylonia,
constituted henceforth " the world " in the mind of the
transmitters of the tradition of the tower of Babel. Tl^is
is a necessary restriction of the term ; by " world " man
meant and could only mean the inhabitants of the earth
1 The Babyloniftn tradition of the flood as transmitted by Berosns appear 9 .to
bring back immediately to Babylonia those survivors of the catastrophe who
did not disappear with Xlsnthrus to the realms of the gods. The Hebrew
narrative leaves it indefinite whether Noah remained in the neighborhood of
the mountain where the ark stranded or returned to the locality of his former
abode. -The tradition of the tower of Babel has in view descendants of Noah
remoter than sons, and people numerous enough to be called the whole world.
THE TOWEK OF BABEL 149
SO far as their existence fell within his knowledge. This
usage of the word is not only necessary, it is historical.
The settlers in Babylonia said : " Let us make brick
and build us a city, and a tower whose top may reach unto
heaven, and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered
abroad upon the face of the whole earth/' The end they
had in view was to prevent their dispersion. The words
suggest that men had already begun to scatter, an occur-
rence which of itself would give rise to dialect in speech ;
or, if the separation of men and the division of language
had not commenced, the words indicate that signs of the
weakening of social bonds were visible. A city and a
tower would counteract the tendency to disperse, would
secure permanence of abode, would form a centre about
which they could cluster and to which in their wander-
ings their minds would revert, would awaken pride in
their bosoms at the thought of personal connection with
a great and prosperous community. The motive was one
of vainglory, but God thwarted their purpose. An act
of judgment — we know not what — resulted in confusion
of their speech, so that they did not understand one an-
other. The consequence was division of the populace,
cessation of the public works, dissolution of the nation,
and eventual emigration to all parts of the known world.
It should be observed that the change of speech is not
asserted to have been sudden, though it may have been ;
much less is it asserted that all differences observable in
languages the world over, or even those characteristic dif-
ferences which distinguish the great families of language,
owe their origin to the confusion at Babel. The event at
Babel must not be minimized, neither must it be exag-
gerated.
History tells of migrations of people from Babylonia,
which originated or aggravated dialectic differences in
language. In most of these cases undoubtedjy the sep-
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11