The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 1

The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends of a.s.syria and Babylonia.

by Theophilus Goldridge Pinches.

FOREWORD

The present work, being merely a record of things for the most part well known to students and others, cannot, on that account, contain much that is new. All that has been aimed at is, to bring together as many of the old discoveries as possible in a new dress.

It has been thought well to let the records tell their story as far as possible in their own way, by the introduction of translations, thus breaking the monotony of the narrative, and also infusing into it an element of local colour calculated to bring the reader into touch, as it were, with the thoughts and feelings of the nations with whom the records originated. Bearing, as it does, upon the life, history, and legends of the ancient nations of which it treats, controversial matter has been avoided, and the higher criticism left altogether aside.

a.s.syriology (as the study of the literature and antiquities of the Babylonians and a.s.syrians is called) being a study still in the course of development, improvements in the renderings of the inscriptions will doubtless from time to time be made, and before many months have pa.s.sed, things now obscure may have new light thrown upon them, necessitating the revision of such portions as may be affected thereby. It is intended to utilize in future editions any new discoveries which may come to light, and every effort will be made to keep the book up to date.

For shortcomings, whether in the text or in the translations, the author craves the indulgence of the reader, merely pleading the difficult and exacting nature of the study, and the lengthy chronological period to which the book refers.

A little explanation is probably needful upon the question of p.r.o.nunciation. The vowels in a.s.syro-Babylonian should be uttered as in Italian or German. _?_ is a strong guttural like the Scotch _ch_ in "loch"; _m_ had sometimes the p.r.o.nunciation of _w_, as in Tiamtu (= Tiawthu), so that the spelling of some of the words containing that letter may later have to be modified. The p.r.o.nunciation of _s_ and __ is doubtful, but a.s.syriologists generally (and probably wrongly) give the sound of _s_ to the former and _sh_ to the latter. _T_ was often p.r.o.nounced as _th_, and probably always had that sound in the feminine endings _-tu_, _-ti_, _-ta_, or _at_, so that Tiamtu, for instance, may be p.r.o.nounced Tiawthu, Tukulti-apil-earra (Tiglath-pileser), Tukulthi-apil-earra, etc., etc., and in such words as _qata_, "the hands," _umati_, "names," and many others, this was probably always the case. In the names abil-Addu-nathanu and Nathanu-yawa this transcription has been adopted, and may be regarded as correct. _P_ was likewise often aspirated, a.s.suming the sound of _ph_ or _f_, and _k_ a.s.sumed, at least in later times, a sound similar to _? (kh)_, whilst _b_ seems sometimes to have been p.r.o.nounced as _v_. _G_ was, to all appearance, never soft, as in _gem_, but may sometimes have been aspirated. Each member of the group _ph_ is p.r.o.nounced separately. _?_ is an emphatic _t_, stronger than in the word "time." A terminal _m_ represents the _mimmation_, which, in later times, though written, was not p.r.o.nounced.

The second edition, issued in 1903, was revised and brought up to date, and a translation of the Laws of ?ammurabi, with notes, and a summary of Delitzsch's _Babel und Bibel_, were appended. For the third edition the work has again been revised, with the help of the recently-issued works of King, Sayce, Scheil, Winckler, and others. At the time of going to press, the author was unable to consult Knudtzon's new edition of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets beyond his No. 228, but wherever it was available, improvements in the translations were made. In addition to revision, the Appendix has been supplemented by paragraphs upon the discoveries at Boghaz-Keui, a mutilated letter from a personage named Belshazzar, and translations of the papyri referring to the Jewish temple at Elephantine.

New material may still be expected from the excavations in progress at Babylon, Susa, ?attu, and various other sites in the nearer East.

THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES.

CHAPTER I. THE EARLY TRADITIONS OF THE CREATION.

The Hebrew account-Its princ.i.p.al points-The Babylonian account-The story of the Creation properly so called-The version given by the Greek authors-Comparison of the Hebrew and the Greek accounts-The likenesses-The differences-Bel and the Dragon-The epilogue-Sidelights (notes upon the religion of the Babylonians).

To find out how the world was made, or rather, to give forth a theory accounting for its origin and continued existence, is one of the subjects that has attracted the attention of thinking minds among all nations having any pretension to civilization. It was, therefore, to be expected that the ancient Babylonians and a.s.syrians, far advanced in civilization as they were at an exceedingly early date, should have formed opinions thereupon, and placed them on record as soon as those opinions were matured, and the art of writing had been perfected sufficiently to enable a serviceable account to be composed.

This, naturally, did not take place all at once. We may take it for granted that the history of the Creation grew piece by piece, as different minds thought over and elaborated it. The first theories we should expect to find more or less improbable-wild stories of serpents and G.o.ds, emblematic of the conflicting powers of good and evil, which, with them, had their origin before the advent of mankind upon the earth.

But all men would not have the same opinion of the way in which the universe came into existence, and this would give rise, as really happened in Babylonia, to conflicting accounts or theories, the later ones less improbable than, and therefore superior to, the earlier. The earlier Creation-legend, being a sort of heroic poem, would remain popular with the common people, who always love stories of heroes and mighty conflicts, such as those in which the Babylonians and a.s.syrians to the latest times delighted, and of which the Semitic Babylonian Creation-story consists.

As the ages pa.s.sed by, and the newer theories grew up, the older popular ones would be elaborated, and new ideas from the later theories of the Creation would be incorporated, whilst, at the same time, mystical meanings would be given to the events recorded in the earlier legends to make them fit in with the newer ones. This having been done, the scribes could appeal at the same time to both ignorant and learned, explaining how the crude legends of the past were but a type of the doctrines put forward by the philosophers of later and more enlightened days, bringing within the range of the intellect of the unlearned all those things in which the more thoughtful spirits also believed. By this means an enlightened monotheism and the grossest polytheism could, and did, exist side by side, as well as clever and reasonable cosmologies along with the strangest and wildest legends.

Thus it is that we have from the literature of two closely allied peoples, the Babylonians and the Hebrews, accounts of the Creation of the world so widely differing, and, at the same time, possessing, here and there, certain ideas in common-ideas darkly veiled in the old Babylonian story, but clearly expressed in the comparatively late Hebrew account.

It must not be thought, however, that the above theory as to the origin of the Hebrew Creation-story interferes in any way with the doctrine of its inspiration. We are not bound to accept the opinion so generally held by theologians, that the days of creation referred to in Genesis i. probably indicate that each act of creation-each day-was revealed in seven successive dreams, in order, to the inspired writer of the book. The opinion held by other theologians, that "inspiration" simply means that the writer was moved by the Spirit of G.o.d to choose from doc.u.ments already existing such portions as would serve for our enlightenment and instruction, adding, at the same time, such additions of his own as he was led to think to be needful, may be held to be a satisfactory definition of the term in question.

Without, therefore, binding ourselves down to any hard and fast line as to date, we may regard, for the purposes of this inquiry, the Hebrew account of the Creation as one of the traditions handed down in the thought of many minds extending over many centuries, and as having been chosen and elaborated by the inspired writer of Genesis for the purpose of his narrative, the object of which was to set forth the origin of man and the Hebrew nation, to which he belonged, and whose history he was about to narrate in detail.

The Hebrew story of the Creation, as detailed in Genesis i., may be regarded as one of the most remarkable doc.u.ments ever produced. It must not be forgotten, however, that it is a doc.u.ment that is essentially Hebrew. For the author of this book the language of G.o.d and of the first man was Hebrew-a literary language, showing much phonetic decay. The retention of this matter (its omission not being essential at the period of the composition of the book) is probably due, in part, to the natural patriotism of the writer, overruling what ought to have been his inspired common-sense. How this is to be explained it is not the intention of the writer of this book to inquire, the account of the Creation and its parallels being the subject in hand at present.

The question of language apart, the account of the Creation in Genesis is in the highest degree a common-sense one. The creation of (1) the heaven, and (2) the earth; the darkness-not upon the face of the earth, but upon the face of the deep. Then the expansion dividing the waters above from the waters below on the earth. In the midst of this waste of waters dry land afterwards appears, followed by the growth of vegetation. But the sun and the moon had not yet been appointed, nor the stars, all of which come into being at this point. Last of all are introduced the living things of the earth-fish, and bird, and creeping thing, followed by the animals, and, finally, by man.

It is noteworthy and interesting that, in this account, the acts of creation are divided into seven periods, each of which is called a "day,"

and begins, like the natural day in the time-reckoning of the Semitic nations, with the evening-"and it was evening, and it was morning, day one." It describes what the heavenly bodies were for-they were not only to give light upon the earth-they were also for signs, for seasons, for days, and for years.

And then, concerning man, a very circ.u.mstantial account is given. He was to have dominion over everything upon the earth-the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, the cattle, and every creeping thing. All was given to him, and he, like the creatures made before him, was told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." It is with this crowning work of creation that the first chapter of the Book of Genesis ends.

The second chapter refers to the seventh day-the day of rest, and is followed by further details of the creation, the central figure of which is the last thing created, namely, man. This chapter reads, in part, like a recapitulation of the first, but contains many additional details. "No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb ... had sprung up: for the Lord G.o.d had not caused it to rain ..., and there was not a man to till the ground." A mist, therefore, went up from the earth, and watered all the face of the ground. Then, to till the earth, man was formed from the dust of the ground, and the Lord G.o.d "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

The newly-created man was, at this time, innocent, and was therefore to be placed by his Creator in a garden of delight, named Eden, and this garden he was to dress and keep. A hidden danger, however, lay in this pleasant retreat-the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of which he was forbidden to eat, but which was to form for him a constant temptation, for ever testing his obedience. All might have been well, to all appearance, but for the creation of woman, who, giving way to the blandishments of the tempter, in her turn tempted the man, and he fell. Death in the course of nature was the penalty, the earthly paradise was lost, and all chance of eating of the tree of life, and living for ever, disappeared on man's expulsion from his first abode of delight.

In the course of this narrative interesting details are given-the four rivers, the country through which they flowed, and their precious mineral products; the naming of the various animals by the man; the forming of woman from one of his ribs; the inst.i.tution of marriage, etc.

Such is, in short, the story of the Creation as told in the Bible, and it is this that we have to compare with the now well-known parallel accounts current among the ancient Babylonians and a.s.syrians. And here may be noted at the outset that, though we shall find some parallels, we shall, in the course of our comparison, find a far greater number of differences, for not only were they produced in a different land, by a different people, but they were also produced under different conditions. Thus, Babylonian polytheism takes the place of the severe and uncompromising monotheism of the Hebrew account in Genesis; Eden was, to the Babylonians, their own native land, not a country situated at a remote distance; and, lastly, but not least, their language, thoughts, and feelings differed widely from those of the dwellers in the Holy Land.

The Babylonian story of the Creation is a narrative of great interest to all who occupy themselves with the study of ancient legends and folklore.

It introduces us not only to exceedingly ancient beliefs concerning the origin of the world on which we live, but it tells us also of the religion, or, rather, the religious beliefs, of the Babylonians, and enables us to see something of the changes which those beliefs underwent before adopting the form in which we find them at the time this record was composed.

A great deal has been written about the Babylonian story of the Creation.

As is well known, the first translation of these doc.u.ments was by him who first discovered their nature, the late George Smith, who gave them to the world in his well-known book, _The Chaldean Account of Genesis_, in 1875.

Since that time numerous other translations have appeared, not only in England, but also on the Continent. Among those who have taken part in the work of studying and translating these texts may be named Profs. Sayce, Oppert, Hommel, and Delitzsch, the last-named having both edited the first edition of Smith's book (the first issued on this subject on the Continent), and published one of the last and most complete editions of the whole legend yet placed before the public. To Prof. Sayce, as well as to Prof. Hommel, belongs the honour of many brilliant suggestions as to the tendency of the texts of the creation as a whole: Prof. Oppert was the first to point out that the last tablet of the series was not, as Smith thought, an "Address to primitive man," but an address to the G.o.d Merodach as the restorer of order out of chaos; whilst Delitzsch has perhaps (being almost the last to write upon it) improved the translation more than many of his predecessors in the work.

Before proceeding to deal with the legend itself, a few remarks upon the tablets and the text that they bear will probably not be considered out of place. There are, in all likelihood, but few who have not seen in the British Museum or elsewhere those yellow baked terra-cotta tablets of various sizes and shapes, upon which the Babylonians and a.s.syrians were accustomed to write their records. And well it is for the science of a.s.syriology that they used this exceedingly durable material. I have said that the tablets are yellow in colour, and this is generally the case, but the tint varies greatly, and may approach dark grey or black, and even appear as a very good sage-green. The smaller tablets are often cushion-shaped, but, with some few exceptions, they are rectangular, like those of larger size. The writing varies so considerably that the hand of the various scribes can sometimes be distinguished. In the best cla.s.s of tablets every tenth line is often numbered-a proof that the a.s.syrians and Babylonians were very careful with the doc.u.ments with which they had to deal. The Babylonian tablets closely resemble the a.s.syrian, but the style of the writing differs somewhat, and it is, in general, more difficult to read than the a.s.syrian. None of the tablets of the Creation-series are, unfortunately, perfect, and many of the fragments are mere sc.r.a.ps, but as more than one copy of each anciently existed, and has survived, the wanting parts of one text can often be supplied from another copy. That copies come from Babylon as well as from Nineveh is a very fortunate circ.u.mstance, as our records are rendered more complete thereby.

Of the obverse of the first tablet very little, unfortunately, remains, but what there is extant is of the highest interest. Luckily, we have the beginning of this remarkable legend, which runs, according to the latest and best commentaries, as follows-

"When on high the heavens were unnamed, Beneath the earth bore not a name: The primaeval ocean was their producer; Mummu Tiamtu was she who begot the whole of them.

Their waters in one united themselves, and The plains were not outlined, marshes were not to be seen.

When none of the G.o.ds had come forth, They bore no name, the fates [had not been determined].

There were produced the G.o.ds [all of them?]: La?mu and La?amu went forth [as the first?]: The ages were great, [the times were long?].

Anar and Kiar were produced and over th[em]....

Long grew the days; there came forth (?)...

The G.o.d Anu, their son.....

Anar, the G.o.d Anu......"

Such is the tenor of the opening lines of the Babylonian story of the Creation, and the differences between the two accounts are striking enough. Before proceeding, however, to examine and compare them, a few words upon the Babylonian version may not be without value.

First we must note that the above introduction to the legend has been excellently explained and commented upon by the Syrian writer Damascius.

The following is his explanation of the Babylonian teaching concerning the creation of the world-

"But the Babylonians, like the rest of the Barbarians, pa.s.s over in silence the one principle of the Universe, and they const.i.tute two, Tauthe and Apason, making Apason the husband of Tauthe, and denominating her the mother of the G.o.ds. And from these proceeds an only-begotten son, Moumis, which, I conceive, is no other than the intelligible world proceeding from the two principles. From them, also, another progeny is derived, Dache and Dachos; and again a third, Kissare and a.s.soros, from which last three others proceed, Anos, and Illinos, and Aos. And of Aos and Dauke is born a son called Belos, who, they say, is the fabricator of the world, the Creator."

The likeness of the names given in this extract from Damascius will be noticed, and will probably also be recognized as a valuable verification of the certainty now attained by a.s.syriologists in the reading of the proper names. In Tiamtu, or, rather, Tiawthu, will be easily recognized the Tauthe of Damascius, whose son, as appears from a later fragment, was called Mummu (= Moumis). Apason he gives as the husband of Tauthe, but of this we know nothing from the Babylonian tablet, which, however, speaks of this Apason (_apsu_, "the abyss"), which corresponds with the "primaeval ocean" of the Babylonian tablet.