LECTURES ON BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY ALBERT T. CLAY f v Division YALE ORIENTAL SERIES RESEARCHES VOLUME XII PUBLISHED ON THE EOUNDATION ESTABLISHED IN MEMORY OF ALEXANDER KOHUT i t YALE ORIENTAL SERIES * RESEARCHES * VOLUME XII THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS HEBREW LEGENDS IN BABYLONIA AND ISRAEL LECTURES ON BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY DELIVERED AT THE LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY MT. AIRY, PHILADELPHIA /■ ALBERT T. CLAY NEW HAVEN YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON • HUMPHREY MILFORD • OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS MDCCCCXXIII Gopyeight, 1923, by Yale University Press THE ALEXANDER KOHUT MEMORIAL PUBLICATION FUND The present volume is the fourth work published by the Yale University Press on the Alexander Kohut Memorial Publication Fund. This Foundation was established October 13, 1915, by a gift to Yale University from members of his family for the purpose of enabling scholars to publish texts and monographs in the Semitic field of research. The Reverend Alexander Kohut, Ph.D. (Leipzig), a distinguished Oriental scholar, in whose memory the fund has been established, was born in Hungary, April 22, 1842, of a noted family of rabbis. When pastor of the Congregation Ahavath Chesed in New York City, he became one of the founders of the Jewish Theological Seminary, and was a professor in that institution until his death. He was a noted pulpit orator, able to discourse with equal mastery in three languages. Among his contributions to Semitic learning is the monumental work Aruch Completum, an encyclopaedic dictionary of the Talmud, in eight volumes. Semitic and Oriental scholars have honored his memory by inscribing to him a volume of Semitic Studies (Berlin 1897). Other Kohut Memorial Publication Funds have recently been established in Vienna and Berlin, and at the newly-founded Jewish Institute of Religion in New York. An Alexander Kohut Research Fellowship in Semitics was established at Yale by his family in 1919. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/originofbiblicalOOclay TO THE CHERISHED MEMORY OF MY LAMENTED COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND PROFESSOR MORRIS JASTROW, JR., Ph.D., LL.D. WHO BY THE FRUITFULNESS OF HIS INVESTIGATIONS AND HIS VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS, AND BY HIS GENEROUS RECOGNITION OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF OTHERS, HAS RENDERED PREEMINENT SERVICE TO ORIENTAL RESEARCH, UPON WHICH HIS NAME HAS BEEN INDELIBLY IMPRESSED FOREWORD The first battery against the prevailing view that the Hebrews had borrowed their religious traditions from Babylonia, was opened up in the Reinicker Lectures, for 1908, dehvered at the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Virginia, resulting in a publication entitled Amurru^the Home of the Northern Semites, a Study showing that the Religion and Culture of Israel are not of Babylonian Origin. After a period of fifteen years, during which time many discoveries bearing upon the subject have been made, the theme was again discussed in lectures delivered at the Lutheran Theological Seminary, Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, as offered here in this monograph. I had hoped before presenting my recent researches ofiThe sub¬ ject, as well as a review of those made during the past fifteen years, to be able to devote myself to the study of certain other cuneiform texts, which I feel also represent Babylonized Amorite or early Hebrew hterature. Since, however, there are now more than suffi¬ cient data available to show the complete baselessness of the con¬ tentions of Babylonism, and also because some scholars do not seem to be able to distinguish between efforts made to reconstruct the civihzation' and history of a lost empire and the riding of a hobby horse, it has seemed advisable to present at this time the material that has been assembled. When the first assault was made against fihe prevailing under¬ standing that Israel had borrowed its traditions from Babylonia, as far as I know, all Assyriologists, and Biblical scholars generally, had accepted this point of view. It is this that has been dubbed Babylonism.^’ The term ^^Sumerism” refers to the view of some Assyriologists, who believe in the Sumerian origin of the traditions, which have been handed down by the Babylonians and Israel. (9) 10 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. Pan-Babylonism, as developed by several German scholars, who have endeavored to show that even parts of the New Testament have evolved from the circle of Babylonian mythology, when even Marduk is transformed into Christ, is only briefly touched upon; for if early Israel did not borrow its religious traditions from Babylonia, it seems unreasonable to suppose that this was done by the Christian Jew. Although the thesis is quite revolutionary, I feel that I have previously given sufficient evidence to prove that it is correct. Certain scholars, however, who have resisted it, have systematically discussed details, or extraneous suggestions, and have avoided facing the real issue. In presenting here the results of my inves¬ tigations, as they are to-day, it has seemed necessary to repro¬ duce the views of many friends, with which I totally disagree, and upon which the theories rest. It is my hope that all will fully realize that in doing so I have had but one thought in mind, and that is to present the facts and theories upon which Babylonism and Sumerism are based, as well as reasons why they should be abandoned, in such a way that what is offered the Biblical student will carry conviction. Having taken a stand against the prevailing view that the Hebrew traditions originated in Babylonia, I should regard it a mistake not to make an attempt to bring the issue to a conclusion, since I feel that sufficient material is at hand to effect this. It was fully expected that the titles of the recent monographs would not meet with the approval of certain scholars any more than did the title of the first contribution. As an illustration of this opposition let me refer here to a criticism that has been offered by a scholar and friend. In his review of The Empire of the AmoriteSj which on the whole was gratifying (see Chapter I), the following lines occur: “Clay argues that there was a ‘great empire of the Amorites^ in which he gives powers of great magnitude to FOEEWORD. 11 ‘mighty Amorite rulers/ and builds for them an ‘imperial city . . . which was powerful enough to rule the land from the Mediterranean to Babylonia/ All this and much more is based on fragmentary evidence piled high and even higher on names of places, names of deities, or fugitive allusions in Babylonian and Assyrian texts all of periods far later than the ‘3rd, 4th, and 5th millenniums^ in which this supposed and subjective empire is presumed to have held sway. One dislikes intensely to say it, but the book presents no objective, positive evidence that there was such an ‘empire.^ The word ‘empire’ is quite inexcusable, no kings’ names of those who ruled it being known, and no imperial city of theirs ever having been excavated.”^ The statement that my position is “based on fragmentary evi¬ dence ... all of periods far later than the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, millenniums,” is, however, an unintentional misrepresentation of fact. I admit that the evidence presented in the monograph to prove the actual existence of an empire, which was all that I had to offer at the time, was slight; but, nevertheless, it is there. On pages 89 and 104, there is written: “The earliest Amorite king, who by his inscriptions informs us that he had conquered Babylonia, is . . . um-Shamash, (also read Ishar-Shamash), king of Mari, and Patesi-gal of Enlil, which means that he was suzerain over the land ... at least part of Babylonia . . . and refers unquestionably to one of those early periods when Amurru was the dominant power in Babylonia.” But while admitting the title was used when the evidence was slight, I am pleased to be able to say that more recent discoveries have completely established the view that there was such an empire. Two years ago a fragment of an early dynastic tablet was discovered in the collection of the University of Pennsylvania, which enables us to fill out the break in the fist of ruling kingdoms, and restore ‘ Rogers, American Historical Review 25, 700 f. 12 THE OEIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. the three missing ones that had ruled Babylonia in the fourth millennium B. C. One of these kingdoms was the Amorite city Mari, 2 which fact is in strict accord with what I have maintained. In other words, the city Mari, which name was synonymous with Amurru,^ is here found ruling Babylonia. This puts the question of the use of the word empire’’ beyond any further dispute. We now have, however, also other very important light on the subject. From an omen- tablet in the Pierpont Morgan Library, con¬ sidered in connection with other known fac^s, we now obtain the information that Humbaba had huipiliated Babylonia^ a thousand years earlier, in the fifth millennium B. C. Even a predecessor called Zu, the storm bird,” had apparently also done this. In view of these facts, I feel quite certain that the reviewer, as well as others who have shared his opinion, will withdraw the assertion that the use of ^Hhe word ^empire’ is quite inexcusable.”® The concluding part of the same sentence, however, namely, ^^no imperial city of theirs ever having been excavated,” is unfortunately correct. If one had been excavated, it is highly probable that investigations along these lines would have been unnecessary. There are those also who contend that the word ^‘Hebrew” was unjustifiably used in my recent work, entitled A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform. Of course this assertion is based on a dis- 2 See Legrain, Museum Journal 1920, 175 f. and Clay, Jour. Amer. Orien. Soc. 41, 243 f. 3 See Empire of the Amorites, p. 68 and Jour. Amer. Orien. Soc. 41, 257, note 75. ^ Clay, A Hebrew Deluge Story 42 f; and Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan IV, 14:65. ® It appears to me that the astrological and omen texts, which unquestionably go back to a very early time, and which refer to the king of Amurru as weU as the kings of Akkad, Elam, and Subartu, should have been sufficient evidence to make such opposition seem precarious. In the omen literature there are many refer¬ ences to the king of Amurru; to cite a single example, ^Tf there was an eclipse of the sun on the 16th day, the king of Akkad wiU die, and the king of Amurru will seize the throne.’^ {ZA 16, 220). FOEEWORD. 13 agreement with my basic position. The criticism is satisfactorily answered in the pages which follow. For the laymen, let me explain here the use of the terms Amorite and Hebrew. The name of the land west of Babylonia, as far as the sea, was called Amurru by the Babylonians and Assyrians. This is only a geographical term, embracing the entire land, having had its origin, doubtless, in the name of a city, as the terms Baby¬ lonia and Assyria had their origin in the city-names Babylon and Ashur. This country was occupied by the Aramaeans, Hebrews, Phoenicians, Canaanites, and other peoples. The use of the term Hebrew,‘Amorite or Amoraic, for the early language of Ajnurru, is intended to designate the early West-Semitic language used in this land, of which we have traces in early cuneiform inscriptions, and which in time developed into what has been preserved for us, which we call Bibhcal Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, etc. In other words, the term Hebrew for this early language, is to be regarded as .used here in the same sense that the Semitic language of the plain of Shinar’^ is called Babylonian; although in the early period the upper part of the land was called Akkad, and still earher Uri, or Uru. We have an exact parallel in calling Anglo- Saxon early Enghsh. The great antiquity of the Amorite civihzation, as well as the Amorite origin of the Semitic Babylonians, has quite recently been unreservedly accepted by Professor Ungnad of Breslau (see Chapter I). When this becomes general—in the light of the data we now have, it cannot be otherwise—and when these contentions as regards the traditions which Israel and Babylonia had in common, are accepted—nor can this also be otherwise in the hght of the facts here presented—a readjustment of a far-reaching character will have to be made in every work on the early history of the Near East. Besides the restoration to history of a great civihzation, that of the Amorite Empire, it means that the poHtical and religious 14 THE OEIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. history of Babylonia, as well as of the Sumerians, must be greatly modified ;^it means that Egyptologists will doubtless feel inclined to take cognizance of even greater influence than heretofore from Syria; it means that the Classical scholar will appreciate that the civilization, reputed to have furpished Greece with many myths, was very ancient and very real; it means that Israel need not be regarded as ‘^mi-barbarous Arabs from the desert, who borrowed their religion, their institutions, and even their ancestry from Baby¬ lonia; but that their civilization, including their traditions, was deeply rooted in their own past history; and it means the abandon¬ ment of many pet theories such as the Arabian cradle-land-wave- theory-of-migration to account for the Semites in Syria and Baby¬ lonia. In a word, it is impossible to realize at present how far- reaching in extent are the modifications of prevailing views that acceptance will require. In the same review above quoted, in referring to my withdrawal of one of the many identifications which had been previously made, there is written the following: It is a pity that other scholars are not so transparently honest.’’ It seems to me that it is not unrea¬ sonable to express the hope in this connection that others will manifest the same spirit. If, in the light of recent research, scholars are convinced that the views which they have published on this subject need modification, especially as regards the traditions of the Old Testament, which are being taught generally in our colleges and schools, as well as in the pulpit, it is to be earnestly hoped they will let this fact become known. Although I have entered the arena with a thesis of a far-reaching and revolutionary character, and have tried to show that the views of all my fellow Assyriologists are wrong, I am gratified with the manner and spirit of those who have opposed it, for among all the many reviews and articles written by American and foreign scholars. FOREWORD. 15 I know of but a single source—which happens, I regret to say, to be that of a former pupil—which could be said to be aggressive. During the past years certain scholars, other than A^yriologists, have not only sympathetically followed 4i;i these investigations, but have wholly or in part accepted their results. I deeply appreciate the encouragement they have given; for after all the specialist in Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic, who also is able to weigh the vagaries of the Assyriologists, is in the best position to judge the merits of the issue; although it is possible even for the student of general history to do this intelligently, especially in the greater part of the discussion which follows. I should like very much to have before the reader of these lectures all that these scholars have written. However, I shall confine myself here to the views advanced in the interests of Babylonism or Sumerism, which are responsible for the deeply rooted conviction that Israel borrowed its religious literature from Babylonia. I desire, in conclusion, to thank also my colleagues. Professors C. C. Torrey, E. W. Hopkins, A. M. Harmon, and Ellsworth Hunt¬ ington, as well as my former colleague, James A. Montgomery, for suggestions and references which are indicated in connection with their names; and also Doctors E. M. Grice and Samuel Feigin, who have read the proof, and the Reverend George A. Kohut of New York, who has not only read the manuscript, but also, as on previous occasions, made possible the early publication of the work on the Alexander Kohut Memorial Publication Fund. Albert T. Clay. May 19, 1923. CONTENTS PAGE I Introductory Remarks. 19 II The Fourfold Argument. 33 III^ The Creation Story. 66 Adam, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall of Man. Ill V The Sabbath. 117 VI The Antediluvian Patriarchs. 124 VII The Deluge Story. 146 VIII The Tower of Babel. 189 APPENDIX Translation of Creation Stories A The Amorite Story of Creation {Enuma elish) . 191 B The Bilingual Babylonian Story of Creation. 213 C The Phoenician Cosmogony ascribed to Sanchuniathon 215 D Story of Creation ascribed to Cannes by Berossus.216 E Damascius on the Theogony of the Babylonians. 217 Index. 219 Addenda. 223 \ { I INTRODUCTORY REMARKS When the writer first proposed the thesis which is here restated under very different conditions, the prevailing understanding as regards the antiquity of the history, culture, and religion of Syria, including Palestine and Mesopotamia, which lands the ancients called Amurru, was as follows: Arabia was the home of the Semites. The Arabs first entered Babylonia about 2800 B. C. and gave that land its first Semitic inhabitants, who under the leadership of Sargon created a great empire. About 2500 B. C., a wave of Arabs entered Canaan, and furnished it with Semites. A little later another wave poured out of Arabia and overflowed Syria. These were called Amorites; and they established the Hammurabi dynasty. About 1400 B. C., Arabia again ^^spat out,^^ and a wave of Arabs called the Aramaean, under Joshua, furnished Palestine with its Hebrews. It was not thought possible that a civilization and culture existed in Aram in what had been known as the patriarchal period, for the people in that land, at this early time, were still in the state of barbarism. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, therefore, were considered by some to be Babylonian gods; and by others as the personification of Arab tribes, clans, or ethnological groups that came into Canaan under Joshua; Israelis sojourn in Egypt was generally regarded as a myth. With such conclusions concerning the early history and civiliza¬ tion of this part of Western Asia, it naturally became comparatively easy for the Biblical student to accept the idea that Israel had borrowed its culture from the Babylonians, the people who had repeatedly invaded Syria and Palestine. It really only required a small additional step to accept the idea that Israel’s religion had (19) 20 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. been extensively influenced by the Babylonian, and that they had borrowed their traditions and their institutions from that land; even that they had Hebraized Babylonian mythological kings or gods into patriarchs, in order to create an ancestry for their people. Naturally this background, painted by Assyriologists for the Israelite rehgion and culture, was unfavorable to the idea that their traditions and religions were rooted in their own past history. Besides, the intelligence of the people who lived in Syria and Palestine, it was held, was not much above that of the “brute beast.’’ Beyond the confines of Egypt and Babylonia were barbarism; the Hebrews were really semi-civihzed Arabs from the deserts, who had adopted as their deity Yahweh, the god of the Kenites. The beginning of their history was when these Arab hordes were brought into Palestine under the leadership of Joshua. When such leading Assyriologists as the late Professors Delitzsch and Winckler of Berlin, Professor Zimmern of Leipzig, Professor Jensen of Marburg, and others, had reached such results; and when such Old Testament scholars as Professor Gunkel of Berlin, wrote that “as long as the Israelite rehgion was in its vigor, it assimilated actively this foreign material [referring to Babylonian myths]; in later times when the religion had become relaxed in strength, it swallowed foreign elements, feathers and all,” Biblical scholars everywhere, it seems, were influenced to accept these conclusions. In England, where the original seeds of this movement had been sown, scholars and students readily followed the lead. In America, the position was conceded as correct by almost every scholar, and the theories were made palatable for the student, who was taught that the Hebrew priests, knowing this Babylonian mythological material, deliberately or unconsciously appropriated it for their rehgious literature. This has been the prevailing understanding for years; and these views are thoroughly rooted everywhere; in nearly every I. INTRODUCTOEY REMARKS. 21 production written by scholars, it has been assumed that they are well established; Bible teachers have been made to feel that these conclusions are final. It was therefore not without some intrepidity that in 1907, after setting forth the generally accepted view as regards the origin of the creation story in a book entitled Light on the Old Testament from Babel,’’ I expressed myself in these words: ^^and yet it is also quite within the range of possibility and reasonableness to conceive the idea that both stories have a common origin among the Semites who entered Babylonia, prior to their amalgamation with the Sumerians, and who may have also carried their traditions into Palestine.” And again: Taking these things into consideration it is not impossible that the idea of a conflict with this primaeval power of darkness, which perhaps is echoed in the New Testament doctrine of evil angels, was brought into Shinar or Babylonia as well as into Palestine by the Semites themselves; in which case it would have found its way into Canaan, millenniums prior to the time this story assumed the form in which it is preserved ii^he Old Testament.”^ At the time, there seemed to be little known that could be used to make such a view appear plausible. To prove that these stories were indigenous in Sy'ria, as I believed they were, it was necessary to show first that civilization actually existed in that land in the centuries prior to Abraham. In the absence of excavations, the only light that could be thrown upon the subject had to come from the Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions. Fortunately the first ray was at hand. One day in working on the business documents of the ^^Murashfi Sons of Nippur,” I discovered that the name of a god written ideographically KUR-GAL in cuneiform, was scratched in Aramaic characters, reading ’tur. That is, for this ideogram, which meant 1 Light on the Old Testament p. 75. 22 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. great mountain/^ the equivalent in Aramaic was ^wr (the char¬ acters that compose the name Ur of the Chaldees), which I pro¬ posed to read and held that it was the same as Amurixu)^ for in many cases the Babylonians used m, where the Aramaeans used This was the opening wedge for the thesis. In texts published shortly afterwards by Professor Peiser of Konigsberg, the correctness of my reading was fully established; for in them he found that the name Amurru was written with the ideograms KUR-GAL and Mar-Tu.^ In other words, the Aramaic writihg showed that Amurru was also read Urru or Uru. This at the time seemed to me to be a discovery of far-reaching importance; and subsequent developments have proved that this supposition was not incorrect. On the same documents I discovered also that the name of the god written ideographically Nin-IB was scratched on the clay tablet in Aramaic characters ^nwU; and this name I read En- Mashtu = En-Martu, and regarded it as Amorite.'^ But what I proposed, Assyriologists did not accept. About a dozen different explanations, by as many scholars, were promptly offered;® none of which agreed with my own; and about a dozen more have since been published in explanation of this Aramaic name.® Some even tried to read the characters differently. However, Professor Montgomery, a year or two later, in working on an Aramaic ostracon from Nippur, fortunately found the same name written no less than five times, showing that my reading of the characters was correct. A few years later, it was my good fortune to discover the reading of the second element of the ideogram of this name, Nin-IB^ on the ^ Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pa. X p. 7 f. 3 Urkunden aus der Zeit der dritten habylonischen Dynastie, p. viii. * Babylonian Expedition X 8 f., and xviii f. ® See Clay, Amurru p. 196, note. ® See Clay, Empire of the Amorites p. 73. Others have since been published. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 23 Yale Syllabary, namely Urtay’^ which proved that my understanding that the name referred to Martu was correct; for Martu or Wartu became ^Urtu. The prefixed element Niriy ^Tady,’’ had come to be read En or Iriy “Lord”; for the deity, who had been originally feminine in its native land, was regarded as both masculine and feminine in Babylonia.^ In short, the new reading proved con¬ clusively that the god, whose name is written ideographically Nin-IBy and which was read En-Urta, was originally the consort of the Amorite Uru, who in time, just as I had proposed, became mascuhnized. This occurred, as is well known, with other deities. But let us return to the story. Following the discovery of these two names written in Aramaic, I endeavored to show that the. Ni^in dynasty (2357-2154 B. C.) was Amorite. I said that “the name of the kings of the Nisin dynasty seem to show West Semitic influence, and that the capital was doubtless a stronghold of this people.”® This conjecture was based on the fact that the name of the founder of the dynasty was compounded with Uru, namely Ishbi-Urra, and that other Amorite names occurred in the list: Urra-imitti, Idin-Dagan, UR-En- Urta, etc. Further I proposed, on the basis of a study of the nomen¬ clature, that the Akkad dynasty (2847-2665? B. C.) was also West Semitic; and, in short, conjectured that for two millenniums prior to the time of Hammurabi, Western Semites at times were able to conquer Babylqnia. This being true, I maintained it ought to follow that a civilization existed in Amurru, which could have produced myths and legends. In 1909, I published a monograph entitled Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites, in which I boldly attacked the prevailing view concerning the origin of the creation story, the sabbath, the ’ Miscellaneous Inscriptions 53:288. • See Clay, Jour. Am. Or, Soc. 28, 139 f. • Clay, Ibidem. 24 THE ORIGIN OP BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. antediluvian patriarchs, the deluge story, as well as concerning the historicity of Abram, Isaac, an^ Jacob. The reception that the thesis received^ was gratifying, especially on the part of Semitic scholars who had not published their views on the subject; but naturally, the Assyriologists who had developed Babylonism, and those scholars who had popularized its theories by their publications, were not disposed to hurriedly acknowledge that their position was no longer tenable; nor were the hosts of Biblical instructors, who, having accepted the verdict of the world’s great Assyriologists, and for years having taught their conclusions, disposed to change their views, because a lone voice had proposed a reversal of them. I had not long to wait for confirmation of an important part of the thesis. A few years later Professor Barton published an inscription which substantiated my view that the N!(sin dynasty was Amorite, for it showed that Ishbi-Urra, the founder of the dynasty, had come from Mari, which city is in Amurru.^® Professor Poebel a httle later discovered dynastic legends and lists which showed contact with Amurru in a very early period.Many other facts also came to light, which confirmed my view that the Amorite civilization synchronized with the earliest in Egypt and Babylonia. Since the appearance of the monograph AmurrUy I have system¬ atically fortified the thesis it contained by presenting one fact after another in articles, and in other publications. In 1919, The Empire of the Amorites appeared, and in it I attempted to reconstruct two or more millenniums of history for the land, prior to"2000 B. C., and more recently, in A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform and other Epic Fragments in the Pierpont Morgan Libraryy I have pre¬ sented data of a crucial character in support of the entire thesis. Babylonian Inscriptions 9:4, 22. Historical Texts (UMBS IV 1) 13 ff. “ Clay, Jour. Amer. Orien. Soc. 41, 241 ff. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 25 The question now is, what is the situation to-day? What do we know about the two or more millenniums of history of Syria prior to Hammurabi, which was almost a perfect blank when these investigations were begun? We have pierced the wall of silence and darkness at certain points, and the views we get by peering through these small and large aper¬ tures are most illunahiating. In order to review fully what is seen, with all its bearings upon contemporary history, it would be neces¬ sary to reproduce here The Empire of the Amorites and A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform. However, a bare outline of the vistas that we get will suffice for our purpose. We have already referred to the discovery that the Amorites founded the Nisin dynasty (2357-2154 B. C.). Quite recently letters of Ibi-Sin, the last king of the previous dynasty have been published, in which he complains that Ishbi-Urra, the Amorite, is making trouble in the land.^^ As we have already mentioned, this ^‘man from Mari’^ succeeded in overthrowing the Ur dynasty, when two Amorite dynasties, Nisin and Larsa, were established, and a little later a third, that of the city of Babylon. A breach in the wall of darkness gives us a view of Amurru a thousand years earlier, at about 3300 B. C., when we ascertain that the capital of Western Asia was then in Amurru at Mari, on the Euphrates; which city was powerful enough to rule Babylonia during the^ reigns of s^eral kings. About a thousand years prior to this period we were able to make another breach; and this time the aperture is so large that we get a scene covering the reigns of three Babylonian kings, when we become acquainted also with three kings who ruled in the Lebanon region. We find that Zu, designated the storm bird,’^ who lived in S3rria, had humiliated Enlil, the chief god of Babylonia, and had robbed him of his pre¬ rogatives as ^Tord of land,^’ when a shepherd named Marad, prob- 13 Legrain, Historical Fragments (UMBS XIII) 3, 6 and 9; see pp. 28 ff. 26 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. ably the Biblical Nimrod, later called Lugal-Marad, ^^King Marad/^ came to the rescue, and with some kind of strategy, ensnared Zu, and pursued him as far as ^Hhe distant mountain Sabu,^^ in the Lebanon range. By his success he was not only able to throw off the yoke of the West, but he conquered Aleppo and Tidnum. During the reign of Lugal-Marad’s successor, named Tammuj:, who sho had conquered this region, we get, with the aid of later traditions, a remarkable picture of the age, when Ashirta, whom the Babylonians called Ishtar, was queen of the land of Aleppo. She was a Cleopatra of that age, and had many wooers. We learn from the inscriptions that her palace stood amidst the cedars of Lebanon. Tammuz, who had been born in the cedar forest, and had become a ruler of Babylonia, with his capital at Erech, was one of her lovers. It was while hunting with Ashirta in a wooded gorge of what was later called the Adonis river, tradition tells us, that he had lost his life. Here in this valley his mangled body had been buried, and a great shrine had been erected. The cult, that was apparently inaugurated by this woman in Syria, as is well known, played one of the most important roles in the life, religion, and history of the ancient world. Some time after the death of Tammuz, a man named Humbaba usurped a throne in that region, and was able to humiliate Baby¬ lonia. It was then that Gilgamesh, the successor to Tammuz, together with his confederate Engidu, fought with Humbaba, and succeeded in restoring the prestige of his land. The data which we can assemble bearing on these three reigns enable us to reconstruct what can be regarded as a chapter in the earliest known history of man.^^ But let us leave this picture for a moment to discuss a criticism that has been offered as regards these early characters being his¬ torical personages, for in previous years they have all been con- Clay, A Hebrew Delude Story 42 ff. I. INTEODUCTORY REMARKS. 27 sidered to be deities, especially because they had been worshipped as such in later periods of Babylonian history. In the light of recent discoveries, however, _^ere is every reason for believing that they were heroic characters who were deified after death. This seemed conclusive following the discovery of the dynastic hsts and legends, referred to above, which Poebel recently published. While it was anticipated that the statement that Ishtar was his¬ torical would not be readily accepted, it was somewhat of a surprise to have a young scholar in the British Museum write thus: ^^In the summary of the early history, few will follow Professor Clay, in considering Gilgamesh and the rest as actual historical figures because their names occur in a king-list, especially when it is remembered that the figures giving the length of his reign are quite impossible.^^^^ In a criticism received in a friendly communica¬ tion, another wrote: ^‘You are doing, or attempting to do, pre¬ cisely the same thing in this twentieth century for Babylonian mythology what Euhemerus attempted to do many centuries ago for Greek mythology.” The fact that Euhemerism, as it was developed, was in time com¬ pletely disregarded, does not prove that Euhemerus was wrong. As far as I can ascertain, since the excavations at Troy, and in the hght of other discoveries, not a few classical scholars hold that many of the so-called Greek and Roman gods were heroic personages. Fortunately Assyriologists are in a better position to judge of the merits of such a question, yes even than Euhemerus himself, who although he had access to the great libraries of his day, doubtless did not have any original manuscripts of the early period. We have hundreds of thousands of original inscriptions, written during the several millenniums that preceded the time of Christ. Thirty years ago Gilgamesh, although called ^Yuler of Erech” in the epic beaiing his name, was regarded as a god. A little later, “ Sidney Smith, Luzac^s Oriental List 33, p. 82. 28 THE OKIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. inscriptions were found which informed us that he built the walls of Erech. Later the personal inscriptions of many other so-called gods came to light, and even records of their operations by others, resulting in many of them being .transferred from the realm of mythology to the pages of history. What seemed even more con¬ clusive was the finding of many liturgical texts belonging to the cults of certain well-known kings, some of whom were adored as divinely sent redeemers able to intercede for the living. In brief, no one would question to-day that the gods Dungi, Bur-Sin, Gimil- Sin, Ishme-Dagan, etc., were kings. And although some of the very earliest of these deified kings in the recently published dynastic lists were credited as having ruled even longer than some of the Biblical antediluvians, there seemed to be no reasons whatsoever for believing them to have originally been deities. It is on this experience of the past decades, and because of many other reasons, that the characters referred to above were regarded as deified kings: namely, Lugal-Marad, who had delivered the land from an invader; the profligate Ashirta (Astarte or Ishtar) ^Hhe queen of Aleppo,’’ whose cult included the licentious rites which appealed to the sensuality of mankind; her paramour, Tammuz, of whom it is even said in the Adapa Legend that he had been king”; and Gilgamesh, ruler of Erech,” who also delivered the land out of the hands of the Amorite Humbaba (previously regarded as an Elamite god). All of them, it seems to me, had been kings and queens. I feel that this view will ere long be accepted by all scholars. Let us now return to the vistas that discovery and research have given us of the early history of Amurru. At present we cannot peer through any breach of an earlier period; but we hope ere long, by the help of the excavator’s pick and spade, to break through at points in the millenniums which preceded, as well as all along the fine of the later periods. There can be little doubt but that this I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 29 land sent its people, centuries earlier than the time we now know of, into the alluvium, called in the Old Testament Shinar, where by their' skill they harnessed the rivers, and established permanent homes. Some of the first settlers had gone down to the shore of the gulf, and there on the land’s end had founded a shrine which they dedicated to the worship of their god Ea (see infra). Others built temples in various parts of the land near the great rivers, and dedicated them to El and other gods of Amurru. Yes, even tradition tells us that the kings who ruled the land before the deluge came from Syria, as is shown by the Amorite names they bear (see Chapter VI). It ought to be added here that as we peer through these breaches we have not yet been able to see any of those migrations of hungry tribes from Arabia, of which in the past we have so frequently heard. I refer to the theory that Arabia js the home of the Semites, and that '^waves’’ of migration emanated periodically from that land. Amurru does not seem to have had to depend upon the desert for its inhabitants, for Semites found the fertile valleys and plains of Amurru, as well as its forests, its minerals, and other treasuries, at a very early period. In other words, we seem to have every indication that the civilization existing in the now earhest known period in Amurru, was then already ancient. The theory that the Semitic cradle rocked in the deserts of Arabia has received no substantiation as yet from these investigations; it still remains theory, pure and simple. After assembling these facts for the reconstruction of the millen¬ niums of history prior to Abraham, facts which make it possible to believe that such stories as the creation and deluge might be indigenous in Syria, we ask, has there been any change in the point of view of scholars; have the Babylonists modified their views? Certain of our foremost scholars who had taken no part in developing Babylonism promptly expressed themselves as being skeptical of its conclusions; but until quite recently I cannot say 30 THE OKIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. that Assyriologists who had written on the subject have done more than make certain modifications. Let me repeat here what I regard as being the first recognition of the thesis on the part of an Assyriologist, and especially as it touches upon the antiquity of the Amorite civihzation. On this, my former distinguished colleague and friend, the late Professor Jastrow, wrote as follows: . . but, gTanting that Professor Clay has pressed his views beyond legitimate bounds, there can no longer be any doubt that in accounting for the later, and for some of the earlier aspects of the Sumero-Akkadian civilization this factor of Amurru^must be taken into account; nor is it at all unlikely that long before the days of Sargon, a wave of migration, from the north / and the northwest, to the south and southeast, had set in, which brought large bodies of Amorites into the Euphrates valley as well as into Assyria.^ While, as stated, several West Semitic scholars had expressed themselves as being favorable to the thesis, this was the first recog¬ nition received on the part of an Assyriologist. There are others who have more recently endorsed the contentions that Syria and Palestine have been occupied by Semites from the earhest times, e., from the late Neolithic periodas well as those who have admitted ‘Hhat there is an element of truth at the bottom of them.’’^® There has followed, however, confirmation of a more pronounced character. In a review of The Empire of the Amoritesj Professor Rogers writes, ^Hhat the book is crowded with the proofs that Amorites lived and influenced the course of human history and that we must find a place for them larger than most of us had dreamed before Clay began these investigations more than a decade ago. It is his Jastrow, Religious Belief in Babylonia and Assyria 26 f. Albright, Jour. Pal. Orien. Soc. II, p. 135. Sayce, Expository Times, 1922, Nov. p. 76. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 31 due to say that he has opened new windows into the dimly seen and darkly understood lands of Western Asia as the early kingdoms were founded. He has not demonstrated the existence of an empire [on this see the Foreword], but of an influence, and that is quite enough.”^® There has, however, appeared more recently what is even more decided in character. Professor Ungnad of Breslau, in a brochure which has just appeared, now fully admits corroboration of my basic position. He writes that the Arabian and African origin of the Semites is becoming more and more improbable as investigations advance; that the Semites were already in Syria, 4500 B. C.; that it was a highly cultivated land; that the Semitic Babylonians came from Amurru; that the great Amorite Empire, which the Semites had created, had been destroyed by the Hittites and Egyptians; and that the Amorites very probably had an alphabetic script long before the earliest that is known.^® It is needless to say that this is in i complete accord with what I have been maintaining as regards the early history and civilization of the Amorites. If these points bearing on the great antiquity of the Amorite civiUzation are generally acknowledged—and they will be, for the proof has already been presented—I feel that the foundation upon which my entire structure rests is estabhshed. This is, therefore, an all-important gain; for without it, or rather the evidence upon which it is based, an early civilization would have to be postulated for Syria, out of which emanated the influences which were exerted upon Babylonia and Egypt. This is now unnecessary. More¬ over, with this historical background estabhshed, I hope in the present monograph to force many vital conclusions with reference to the origin of religious and cultural elements that found their way into Babylonia; among which are the creation and deluge stories. Rogers, American Historical Review 25, 700 ff. Ungnad, Die. dltesten Volkerwanderungen Vorderasiens. 32 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. In doing so, I realize that I shall have many hands against me. To inform the teacher that the views which he has taught, and which his student has accepted, should be abandoned, or reversed, is not likely to be hailed with delight. This, nevertheless, must follow; for I believe that I can now present the problem in such a way that all, even those who have not studied Assyriology, can judge for themselves the merits of the position which is now so generally accepted, as well as what is here proposed: namely, its aban¬ donment. If what the lone Assjriologist here presents is not effective in certain quarters, there will be no disappointment. It is a great deal to expect scholars to nullify what they have written, covering in some instances many decades, as long as there is anything to which they can cling. I am thoroughly convinced, however, that in time even their opposition will take care of itself; for in the pages which follow there is more than sufficient evidence, not only to show that their position is baseless, but to establish the thesis that Amurru is the home of the traditions that we will discuss. In the course of the discussions under the various topics, I will give the criticisms that scholars have already made of my previous efforts, even some from an aggressive source that do not merit any notice. In presenting hundreds of facts and details, there naturally is plenty of room for shps. A few of these which I have discovered, or to which attention has been called, are cheerfully acknowledged. But let me add here that I know of no criticism of a vital character that has been made, thus far, which has not been, or is not here fully answered. II THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT In discussing the problem of the origin of traditions handed down by Israel and the Babylonians, the arguments are grouped under four heads, bearing upon inigrations, chmate, names, and lin¬ guistic evidence. The first argument I desire to use in establishing my thesis is based on a study of invasions or conquests and migrations, and what their respective bearing is in connection with the cultural and religious influences of the one nation upon the other. This study I feel will be found to have a most important bearing in the solution of the whole problem before us, especially in view of the proof that for years has been offered for the Babylonian origin of the stories in Genesis, and of Israel's culture and religion in general, as well as for the claim that before Israel entered Canaan it was a domain of Babylonian civilization. With that in view we will briefly review what is at present known concerning the conquests or invasions and migrations emanating not only from Syria and Babylonia, but also from Egypt; because, like Babylonia, Egypt is a great alluvium which has been closely connected with Syria. There were other peoples who played a role in the politics of the Near East in the early period, as the Elamites, Hittites, etc., but having rather meagre knowledge of their history and religion, as well as for other reasons, we will confine the survey to the three nations mentioned. From a study of the movements of nations in antiquity, it seems to the writer that the following two principles can reasonably be laid down. First, while the conquering invader leaves such evi¬ dence of his presence in the land as victory steles, material objects, (33) 34 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. social and linguistic influences, his influence upon the religion of the land is either exceedingly meagre, or nil. Secondly, when migra- tions take place, including also the exiling or enslaving of peoples, the religion and culture of the people migrate with them; and Uieir influence is found in the land^to which they go. Let us now take a survey of the conquests or invasions and migrations as well as other related influences under the following heads: first, Egyptian conquests or invasions of, and migrations to, Amurru; secondly, Amorite conquests or invasions of, and migra¬ tions to, Egypt; thirdly, Babylonian conquests or invasions of, and migrations to, Amurru; fourthly, Amorite conquests or invasions of, and migrations to, Babylonia. Egyptian Conquests of Amurru No references are made in the Egyptian inscriptions to contact with the Amorites in the earliest period. About 3000 B. C., the city of Byblos in Phoenicia is mentioned in the Pyramid texts. The reports concerning the excavations recently conducted at that city by the French offer interesting confirmation of these refer¬ ences; for we are informed that inscriptions have been found there belonging to the early period, including those of Mycerinus, Unas, and Phiops I., and that an Egyptian temple was erected there at a very early time.^ The first known Egyptian campaign to Asia was in the reign of Athothis, about 2900 B. C.^ Snefru, of the Third dynasty, men- 4 tions bringing to Egypt forty shiploads of cedar from Lebanon. Sahure of the Fifth dynasty (about 2735 B. C.), sent a fleet against the Phoenician coast. At Abushir, a relief has been discovered showing four ships filled with Amorite prisoners, also from the Phoenician coast. Uni of the Sixth dynasty, invaded the land. 1 Montet, Syria II 333 ff. * See Borchardt, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft 17, 342 ff. II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 35 We have a tale of an adventure in Amurru by one named Sinuhe, in the time of Sesostris I. In the reign of Sesostris III (1887-1849 B. C.), a district called Sekmen, perhaps Shechem in Palestine, was pillaged. Ahmose I, Thutmose I, and Thutmose II also invaded Syria. Thutmose III, as is so well known, completely subjugated the land, and brought it under the control of Egypt. His successors lost it to the Hittites and the Habiri in the time of Amenhotep IV. The operations of Seti I, Rameses II, Merneptah, Sheshonk, Necho, and others in Palestine and Syria, are well known. The social and political influences exerted by Egypt upon Amurru, as determined by excavations, are shown by such archaeological evidences of their presence in the land as victory steles, scarabs, pottery, etc. These have been found in practically every site that has been excavated in Palestine. One needs only to examine the collections of Palestinian antiquities in Jerusalem, Constantinople, and elsewhere, to be fully convinced of this fact. However, it is to such political or cultural matters that Egyptian influence is conflned. Besides these expeditions to Syria and the conquest of that country, and the establishing of a temple at Byblos, we know of the missionary efforts to establish the worship of Amen in that land. Thutmose III dedicated three cities to that deity in the Lebanon district; Seti I set up his own statue in Bashan, repre¬ senting himself as offering a libation to Amen. Rameses III also dedicated cities in Syria to Amen-Re, and built a shrine for his worship in Canaan. At the time of the Egyptian supremacy in the land, if the local ruler refused to sacrifice to the Egyptian gods, it was a sign of open revolt. Although the expressed devotion to ^The sun’’ in the Amarna letters retained the Amorite name of Shamash, it was nevertheless intended to show obeisance to the Egyptian god. Such facts show us that rulers doubtless officially sacrificed to Amen. Even the people were taxed to support the shrines that had been established. The story of Wenamon (about 36 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. 1100 B. C.), some years after this supremacy came to an end, would seem to show that the prestige of the god had not entirely ceased at that time. Nevertheless, in spite of these efforts, there does not seemj^o h^e been any permanent influence made upon the religions of Canaan by the Eg 3 ^tian religion. A study of the "place names does not show any. Certainly the literature of the Old Testament does not betray any. ‘ ^ This lack of influence of the Egyptian religion can only be explained as being due to the fact that the Egyptians did not colonize' in Syria. They had fortresses and outposts m the' land, but aplpareiitly when the service of the Egyptians came to an end, they preferred to return to the Nile valley. As far as is known, there were no migrations t^p Amurru from Egypt; excepting, of course, the return of the sons of Israel. There is a perfectly sane reason for this fact. While there are certain plains or valleys, like the Jordan, Esdraelon, and the Shephelah, which attracted peoples from other parts, as well as such districts as Aleppo, Haran, Damas¬ cus, etc.; and while the land '^yielded figs and vines,’’ and ^^more plentiful than water was its wine, copious its honey, and plenteous its oil,” how do these compare with what was so easily obtained in the Nile valley? Imagine an Egyptian choosing to leave ‘^the flesh pots” of his land, with its opulent fertility, to dwell in Palestine. It is becoming popular to regard the sojourn of the sons of Jacob in Egypt as a myth. This, of course, is based on a mere conjecture. For me it is rather difficult to believe that such a tradition, with all that it involved, could have taken such a hold upon a people and their literature without there being a historical basis for it; especially when we recall that in their temple service, and in an annual festival, right under the eyes of Egypt, the history of their serfdom and bond¬ age was recited, and their dehverance commemorated. True, the Hebrews did not^bring back to Palestine such customs and evidences of their sojourn as^did Judah, for example, when it II. THE FOUKFOLD ARGUMENT. 37 returned from Babylonia. In Egypt and in Israel, sacrifices were offered, libations poured, and vestments were worn by the priests; and it seems they also had in common such things as the ark with its adornments, the breast-plate, and doubtless other ceremonial paraphernalia. Although the use of many ^of these things was ^ universal at the time, it is nevertheless reasonable to suppose that Egyptian patterns which were familiar to Aaron, the high priest, would have influenced those of the Hebrews, even though the signification attached to these things was altogether different in Israel. It would be impossible to understand how, when Moses codified the precepts of Israel, he was not influenced by Egyptian law, perhaps even by the legal language; and it is difficult.to understand how Israel could live in a land fairly surcharged, as one has said, with eschatological ideas where the people were so busy attending to the needs of the dead, and yet not develop such an idea as the Egyptian had of the resuscitation of the departed. It seems, however, that even the Hebrew doctrine of the resurrection belongs to a later period. It should also be noted that while Egyptian scarabs, the symbol of immortality, are found in the ruins of the land, we have as yet no indication that any of them are to be asso¬ ciated with the Hebrew religion. The fact that Israel had lived in^e delta more or less removed from the chief centres, must at least in part explain this; but it would seem that the tenacity for their own belief, which has been so characteristic of the Hebrews in all ages, is doubtless the chief reason ^ why they were not influenced by the religion, and even very little by the culture of the Egyptians. I have dwelt at some length on this subject because of the clairn that the Hebrews have so re^ly assimilated the beliefs of the ^ Babylonians. This, as we shall see, is not only without any veri¬ fication, but, it seems to me, shows a lack of appreciation of the 38 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. loyalty which Jews have always displayed for their faith. ' And, moreover, it is amazing to find certain Jewish scholars themselves not only accepting such conjectures of the Babylonists, but popu¬ larizing them. In summing up th*e religious influences of the near neighbor Egypt upon Amurru, we can only come to the conclusion that they are practically nil; and that this must be attributed to the fact< that Egyp^ans did not migrate to that land. ^ \ Amorite Conquests of and Migrations to Egypt Let us now inquire what knowledge we have concerning Amorite conquests or invasions of, and migrations to, Egypt. While from what is here presented an extensive influence of Amurru can be in¬ ferred, we have unfortunately no historical records from that land to give us data concerning their conquests or migrations. The absence of any historical inscriptions from this region, of course, is weH^ understood as being due to the lack of excavations having been conducted there until quite recently, excepting in Palestine; and also to the fact that a perishable writing material was very generally used. We are, however, in hopes that the French will find such inscriptions at Byblos; or when excavations are conducted at such sites as Aleppo, Antioch, Kedesh, Haran, Mari, that cuneiform tablets will be found similar to such archives as have been dis¬ covered in Hittite regions. But while records from early Syria are wanting, we can, however, definitely show that Amurru not only invaded Egypt, but migrated to that land. Egyptian scholars agree that extehsive Semitic influences had already been exerted upon the language of Egypt at the verjrfeegin- ning of the historical period.^ Ci^r^logical researcli has shown the same thing.l/ The influence of Byblos as early as 3000 B. C., and the veneration of the goddess of that city in Egypt, imply migra- * Mueller, Orientalistische Literatureeitung XI 403 f. 5 II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 39 tions from Amurru. In the dark period from about 2350 R. C., at the very time thd -Amorites occupied the thrones of Babylonia, it is ponceded tl^t many Semitic loan words were introduced in the Egyptian language.^ The same thing occurred ^ Babylonia. This lexicographical and grammatical influence upon the Egyptian language, in the absence of historical data, speaks loudly as regards migrations. Since Aniurru was then politically in the ascendency, there can be little doubt as to the origin of this Semitic influence. This is confirmed by Professor Flinc^rsJPetrie who informs us of the discovery of ^^a remarkable cylinder of'^dsppF with the name of Khandy ... a Syrian king ruling Egypt.’’ This,, he further tells us, seems to show the political influence of the Vlllth dynasty, and is closely in accord with Professor Clay’s view of an early Amorite kingdom.”^ ^ It is now generally conceded that the Hyksos, who invaded and held Egypt in the early part of the second millenniuin B. C., were Semj|es fr^m Syria. It was also about this time that the sons of Jacob went down to Egypt. We even have a remarkable mural painting, belonging to the time of Sesostris III (1887-1849 B. C."), depicting thirty-seven men, women, and children, from Syria, headed by their chief, Abesha, bringing presents. Abesha is the same name as the Hebrew Abshai of the Old Testament. The scene presents a picture of a civilized people. The late Professor W. M. Mueller of Philadelphia, in his work on Egyptian Mythology, has informed ,us that a considerable part of Egyptian religious thought was influenced by Ainiu*ru. Even Amorite mytl^ were adopted. An illustration of this is to be found in the conflict between the god of light and the primaeval monster of the abyss, known as “the Creation myth,” in other words the B^aiscH-p^niHscken Sr>rack..ei,e an,e,^,e Lekn.^; also Burchardt, Alt-kanaandischen Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Aegyptischen. ‘ See The Expository Times, Dec. 1921, p. 121. N ( 40 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. story which the Babylonians also borrowed. This, he tells us, reached Egypt some time after 2500 B. C., and gave rise to the story of the gigantic serpent, 'Apop, the enemy of the sun-god. xlt would seem to me this i^orite myth hald migrated with the people to Egypt in the dark period, above referred to, beginning about 2350 B. C. This is a strikingly significant point in this whole discussion, because at this time, as mentioned above, the Amorites also invaded Babylonia. Mueller also informed us that only faint traces of the creation of the world from the carcass of the abysmal dragon are found, but other ideas bearing on the conflict with the monster recur in many variant forms. Isis and Osiris^are identified with the Tammuz and Ishtar l^nds ^f S^a.® / Following the Hyksos occupation, he further tells us, the worship of Asiatic deities became fashionable in Egypt, being propagated by many immigrants, mercenaries, merchants, etc., from Syria. Among the gods of Amurru worshipped in Egypt are Ba’al, Besheph, Shalman, Astarte, Qedesh, Nikkal, and Anat.’ In summing up the influences exerted by Amurru upon Egypt, and vice versa, we can only conclude that Egypt has left no impress upon the religion, and even little upon the culture, of Syria and ® I cannot follow Langdon {Journal of Egyptian Arch. VII 133 ff), who has tried to show that the Egyptian religion is related to the Sumerian because of certain similarities found in rituals of the Tammuz and Ishtar cults and those of Osiris and Isis, especially because they bore the same relation to each other: namely, as brother and husband. The Tammuz and Ishtar cult, I maintain, is West Semitic. Further, I see in other evidence offered to prove such a relationship between the Egyptians and Sumerians nothing beyond the fact that Egypt and Sumer had certain ideas in common; other ancient nations had them as well. I refer to the theory of emanation from the union of a god and goddess; figurines of the mother goddess and child; etc. Moreover, I think Langdon could prove much more effectively that the linear writing of the American Indian is a ‘‘survival of the Old Sumerian writing” than are the Egyptian “pottery marks,” for a large collec¬ tion of Indian glyphs can be assembled, which are strikingly similar to the Sumerian. ’ Mueller, Egyptian Mythology 104 ff. II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 41 Palestine; and that this was due to the lack of migrations to that land. On the other hand, we must conclude that the influence of Amurru upon Egypt was exceedingly great; and that this was due to the fact that migrations to that land took place. Babylonian Conquests of Amurru I Let us now turn to Babylonia, and incjuire what light we have concerning that land’s conquests of, and migrations to, Amurru. One of the earliest Babylonian kings known, Etana, who tells us he subdued all lands, very probably invaded Syria. Lugal-Marad and Tammuz, prior4}o 4000 B. G., we know conquered the West. The consort of the latter, called Ishtar in Babylonia, the writer feels he has shown, as already mentioned, was Ashirta, a queen who ruled at Aleppo. Gilgamesh, who followed Tammuz, overthrew Humbaba of the Lebanon district. All this occurred before 4000 B. C.» Lugal-zaggisi, king of Erech, conquered the Westland as far as the Mediterranean, as did also his successor Sargon (c. 2850 B. C.), and a little later, Naram-Sin. Gudea, the patesi of Lagash, we know, secured building materials in Amurru. The kings of the Fourth Ur dynasty likewise had considerable to do with this land; for they held it in subjection until the Amorites, about 2350 B. C., overthrew their rule. Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and his allied kings, as we learn from the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, invaded Palestine after the land rebelled against his suzerainty. That Elam held the suzerainty of Amurru at this time, is fully confirmed by the inscriptions. For about a dozen centuries, following the Hammurabi period, the land was unmolested by the Babylonians. The Assyrians, how¬ ever, under Shamshi-Adad I, about 2000 B. C., conquered the * A Hebrew Deluge Story 45 f. 42 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. / I Lebanon district; ^and in the first millennium B. C., completely subjugated the land. We need not rehearse/here the Assyrian suzerainty of Syria and Palestine, for this is familiar to all. " i I desire, in reviewing these conquests and invasions, to point out that white' the Babylonians often humiliated Syria and Palestine, and held it in subjection for long periods, we have no knowledge of any migrations to that land, excepting of course when the Jews returned to their Zion, from the Babylonian captivity. No one will question that Babylonian customs and personal names migrated with Judah when it returned from the captivity. Moreover, it would be remarkable if such had not been the case. But when we are asked to believe that during the exile, Israel’s religion absorbed much from the Babylonian, when the creation and deluge myths, etc., were adopted, this is a totally different matter; and, I maintain, it is untenable. We should also mention here the fact that Sargon II replaced’ the Hebrews which he carried away from Samaria with men from Babel, Cutha, etc. Their influence, moreover, does not seem to have been felt upon the religion of the Samaritans. Doubtless not many moons passed before a large portion of them had trekked back to their fertile land. ^ The trade routes passed through the district of Samaria, and there was^on^tant intercourse with the heathen, resulting in many aposta¬ tizing; for the claim is that their prophets “prophesied by Ba*al,” and caused the people to err; nevertheless, in the years following the capture of Samaria, the Jews did not charge the people with idolatry. In short, there is no evidence of any foreign influence upon the religion and culture of the Samaritans at this time. There is one other movement which has been very much over¬ worked in efforts to make Babylonism appehr reasonable. Abra¬ ham, the son of Terah, we learn from Genesis, went from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran, whence he migrated to Palestine. This is II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 43 looked upon by some scholars as the migration from Babylotiia of the Terahites. The identity of Mugheir in Southern Babylonia with Ur of the ^ Chaldees, although possible, is by no means certain, and especially since the Jews who lived in Babylonia did not know the site, think¬ ing that Warka (ancient Erech) was Ur, and also because St. Stephen refers to Ur as being in Mesopotamia (Acts 7:2). I have given reasons elsewhere for believing that ’Ur {’wr) is to be identified with Mari on the Euphrates in Mesopotamia, which city apparently was the great seat of worship of the god ’Ur (’wr ); and which city, although very important in the time of the patriarchs, was practically lost sight of in later centuries.® However, this is a mooted question, and need not enter into this discussion, especially since Babylonia was filled with Amorites at this time. It is reasonable to conjecture that this tradition may be an echo of a fair-sized migration, headed by Terah; but this could only be interpreted as being a return of Amorites to their ancestral home; for Abram was an Aramaean. It may even represent the descend¬ ants of some who had been forced to dwell in Ur. While, therefore, it is possible to conjecture that Ur was in Southern Babylonia; that the Amorite Terahites while they lived there 'Mrank deeply” of the mythological fountains of the land, •Since Mar** and Mar-Tu^^ Amurru ^ Cm) are used interchangeably, and since the name ’wr is also written Cr, I have had no hesitation in identifying Mar or War with Ur. (See Empire of the Amorites 100 ff.). It would be interesting to have Albright give the proof for his assertion that this is not tenable for philological reasons {Jour, Palestine Or. Soc. I, p. 77). Following are Albright’s philological reasons for identifying Ur of the Chaldees with Arbail. He arrives at this as follows;-' Arpakshad is identified with Arrapha = Arrapka = Arpak, Arpakshad^ Arpak shade. The similarity between Arphaxad and ’Ur Kasdum is explained thus: The most important city near Arrapka was Arbela {Urbillu, Urbel, Arbail). Urbel in Arphaxad, the home of Abram, was corrupted to Arkel, which was \ emended into ’Ur Kasdim {Jour. Bib. Lit., XXXVII 134 f.). 44 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. as some have suggested; that they carried Babylonian myths with them to Haran, and then to Palestine, where they became a vital part of the religious conceptions of the Phoenicians and Hebrews—while all this were possible, it must be understood as being simply conjectural. But, moreover, all this does not explain how the Egyptians, centuries before the time of Abram, through contact with S 3 nria had borrowed ^Hhe myth of the combat between the god of heaven and light and the abysmal dragon of the ocean,^^^° otherwise generally known as the Creation story. We find, therefore, that while many conquests and invasions by the Babylonians of the land of the Amorites are known, there is no trace of any migrations on the part of the Babylonians. In explanation of this fact, as in the case of Egypt, we need only com¬ pare the land of Amurru with the alluvial plain with its prodigious fertihty. If, therefore, it is correct that the Babylonians did not migrate to the West, then according to the principle laid down we should find that while cultural influences may have been felt in Amurru, we should not expect to find that the Babylonian religion had influenced that land. Let us now inquire what excavations and research have revealed in the form of actual proof that Babylonia has exercised such an extensive influence socially as well as religiously upon Canaan or the Hebrews, as has been so confidently asserted; or upon what tangible archaeological evidence the Babylonists have based the statement that Canaan was a domain of Babylonian civilization. We need not repeat here the story of the Amarna letters, that in the middle of the second millennium B. C., the Babylonian lan¬ guage was used all over Western Asia and Egypt as the lingua franca of that era. This was unquestionably a literary age. The ability to write in the script of the Babylonians was no mean Mueller, Egyptian Mythology 104 ff. II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 45 accomplishment. Education must have been widely spread. All classes of society and both sexes seem to be represented in these writings. The political domination of Babylonia, in some earlier era, probably in the time of Hammurabi, doubtless brought about this use of the language and script. Among the peoples we know used it are the Egyptians, the Amorites or Canaanites, Hittites, Mitanneans, and peoples in Cappadocia and Cyprus. Doubtless all civilized peoples of the ancient world studied this lingua franca of that era. The Amarna tablets have furnished the background and the backbone for the Babylonist view that the religion and culture of Israel are Babylonian. I know of no efforts to show that other than Amorite lands were thus influenced; Canaan especially is centred upon in this connection, because, it is claimed, it was occu¬ pied by a semi-barbarous people. It is generally conceded that this use of the Babylonian language resulted in many Babylonian words creeping into the language of the country; doubtless other Babylonian words also found their way into usage through commerce and political occupation. Know¬ ing what the influence of the French language was wherever it was used as the diplomatic or inter-commercial language, we know exactly what should be expected. It is also reasonable to infer that the scribes in Palestine, who had to know the Babylonian lan¬ guage, would have had copies of Babylonian legends and other kinds of model texts in order to study it, for as is well known, two such texts were found in Egypt; which discovery the Babylonists have stressed so hard in their efforts to show the influence of the Babylonian religion. But it would be just as easy for them to prove that when French was studied in England and Germany for a similar purpose, the people of these lands appropriated the Mar¬ seillaise, or the legend of Jeanne d’Arc as their own, as it would be to prove that Canaan or Israel appropriated in this age the 46 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. myths and legends of Babylonia for their own religious literature. In short, I contend that without other evidence of an archaeological character to show Babylonian influence upon the religions of Canaan, this argument is futile. Let us now enquire what has been found in the shape of archaeo¬ logical material in the numerous sites excavated in Palestine, as well as what research in general has produced to substantiate the idea that Canaan, when Israel entered the land, was a domain of Babylonian culture. What light on the subject is obtained from the material objects that have been discovered? At Gezer one of the massehoth, or stone pillars, which Macalister discovered, was polished with the kisses of worshippers; this he regarded as possibly the central object of veneration. This bcetylos or heth-el, house of God,’^ as Professor Sayce calls it, is declared by him to ‘Hake us back to Semitic Babylonia.’’ The belief that the stone was a “shrine of divinity,” he tells us, “belonged to an age of reflection and points to a Babylonian source.”^^ I cannot follow in this. The massebdh, or stone pillar, has not been found in Babylonia; and I know of no worship similar to it in that land. Concerning seals found in Palestine, Professor Sayce writes: “It is true that a few seal-cylinders have been met with in the exca¬ vations on the city sites, but with the exception of one found at Taanach I do not know of any that can be said to be of purely Babylonian manufacture; most of them are of Syrian make, and represent a Syrian modification of the Babylonian type.”^^ It is really surprising, in view of the use of the Babylonian lan¬ guage and script in Canaan, that, like Egyptian scarabs, many Babylonian seals should not have been discovered there. But let us here examine the one that has been credited as Babylonian. The inscription reads: “Atanakh-El, the son of Khabsim, the ser- ArchcBology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions 147 f. “ Ibidem 151 f. II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 47 vant of Ne-Uru-Gal.”^^ The personal names are Amorite, and the deity, who was worshipped in Babylonia, is also Amorite. Other names of the same deity are Urra-Gal and Urra. There are also three Egyptian hieroglyphs on the seal. The scene, which is rather crudely drawn, can scarcely be said even to be patterned after a Babylonian model. This is the only seal that the above-mentioned writer even considers to be Babylonian. In short, this seal must be grouped with those of Syrian manufacture. At Ta'anach a bronze sword was found similar in shape to one which belonged to the Assyrian king Adad-nirari. Here again we can only express surprise that more such objects have not been found, since we know that Babylonia and Assyria had dominated Canaan in many periods. At Ta'anach tablets were found in a jar, in apparently what was the residence of the chief man of the town, named Ashirta-washur. They refer to political as well as to private affairs. They were written in the Amarna period.There is absolutely nothing found in the tablets to show any other influence from Babylonia except that they are written in the language and script of that land, which, as already mentioned, was then used throughout Western Asia and Egypt. To say, therefore, that these few tablets and “letters are a final proof, if any were needed, of the complete Babylonian nature of Canaanite civilization in the country before the Exodusis a conclusion that I cannot follow. One could just as easily show the complete French nature of any country's civilization during the last century, in the absence of any other documents but some written in French. Professor Nowack, in his review of the excavations at Tel-el- 13 Sellin, Tell Ta'annek p. 28. 1^ See Ibidem 113 ff., and Empire of the Amorites p. 54. 13 Sayce, Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions 150 f. 48 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. Mutesellim writes: is a disturbing but irrefutable fact that until down to the fifth stratum— i. e. to the beginning of the eighth century—important Assyrian influences do not assert themselves. It is most significant that at Megiddo not a single idol from the Assyrian-Babylonian pantheon has been found.’’Even the Assyr¬ ian influence that this writer acknowledges, is based on seals; but these, as we have seen above, are recognized generally to be of Syrian origin. The results of the excavations by Mr. Macalister were the same; concerning which Professor Sayce has written as follows: ^‘What makes it the stronger is that Mr. Macalister has opened a long series of graves beginning with the neolithic race and coming down to Grseco-Roman times, and that while the influence of Egypt is sufficiently visible in them, that of Babylonia is almost entirely absent.I think it would be even more accurate to say, that it is entirely absent. I find that Professor Gunkel says that the system of measures, weights, and money, used in Israel was Babylonian. Even were this a fact, it would prove no more in this connection than it would to say that Greece has adopted from the Sumerians the division of the circle into three hundred and sixty degrees. As far as I can understand, the Babylonians and the Hebrews only had the manah, shekel, and kor, in common; and whether these terms had their origin in Amurru or Babylonia, is a question on which there is no light; and moreover, it is also a question of comparatively little y consequence in this connection. The ancient, like the modern, readily adopted the science of his neighbor; but not his religion. Professor Gunkel also tells us of the influence of Babylonia upon Israel in the use of particular numbers, e. g., 7 and 12; because the Tablets of Creation” were written on seven tablets, and the Gilga- Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1908, No. 26. Sayce, ibidem p. 151. II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 49 mesh epic was written on twelve, etc.^® Of course a similar argu¬ ment could be used in connection with any series of books that happened to appear in seven or twelve volumes. In studying all the antiquities that have been found in Palestine, we can only conclude that besides the inscription which Shalmaneser III cut alongside that of Rameses II on the cliff at the mouth of the Dog River, a short distance north of Beirut, in Sjo-ia, and besides several letters and contracts already referred to, written in the intercommercial language of the era, we can correctly say with Professor Sayce that ^^the more strictly archaeological evidence of^. Babylonian influence upon Canaan is extraordinarily scanty that there are ^‘few material evidences of intercourse with Baby¬ lonia.’ This must be conceded as remarkable, especially since we know that Palestine was on the highroad between Babylonia and Egypt, and because of the Egyptian antiquities which have been found in the land. Certainly from these results, it is obvious that the claims of pan-Babylonism do not appear in a very favorable light. It is generally held that the Bible had certain precepts in com¬ mon with those found in the Hammurabi code, e. g., ‘^eye for eye, and tooth for tooth,” as well as certain laws which are compara¬ tively similar, including the behavior of Jacob and Laban, or Hagar and Sarah, which coincide with certain laws of the code. In the light of the recent discoveries, I do not think that even these facts furnish any definite criteria on the subject; for aside from the question of interdependence, it is now admitted that Hammurabi was an Amorite; and that for two hundred and twenty-five years before the time he codified the laws, the land was governed by Amorites; and moreover, Hammurabi, in the code states that' he 18 Gunkel, Israel and Babylon p. 21. Ibidem p. 151. Ibidem p. 154. 50 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. put the laws of Aleppo into execution.Exactly what importance is to be attached to this saying, of course, is at present a question. Further, we know that the early laws in the Yale Collection, written in Sumerian, which are a prototype of the Hammurabi Code, are the ^4aws of Nisaba and Khani,’^ two Amorite deities.^^ It is not improbable that Hammurabi may have promulgated his laws in Amurru. These, however, exclude all legislation bear¬ ing on religious matters, and in consequence had no influence upon the vast body of religious laws in the Mosaic Code. And now let us face the reasons given for the assertion that Babylonian theology had made its way to Canaan, and extensively influenced the religions of that land. This is based upon the fact that certain deities known from the Babylonian inscriptions were also worshipped in Palestine. It is said that ^The deities of Canaan were to a large extent Babylonian, with Babylonian names. The Babylonian gods Ana, Nebo, Rimmon (Ramman), Hadad, and Dagon meet us in the names of places and persons, and Ashtoreth, who shared with Baal the devotion of the inhabitants of Palestine, is the Babylonian Ishtar with the suffix of the feminine attached to her name.’'22 In view of this contention that in Palestine certain gods of Baby¬ lonia were worshipped, it becomes necessary to digress here suffi¬ ciently to discuss this assertion and ascertain upon what basis it rests. It is scarcely possible that the writer would say to-day that Hadad or Rimmon had his origin in the Babylonian Adad. Prac¬ tically all scholars now agree, as far as I know, that at an early date the Amorite Hadad was carried into Babylonia. This fact, however, must be regarded as very significant. Let us repeat. It is now generally conceded that the Amorite Hadad migrated to See Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions p. 19. 22 Sayce, Archmlogy of the Cuneiform Inscriptions (1908) 152 f. II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 51 Babylonia in an early era; and there his name was written Adad, Addu, Adadi, Adada, Dadda, Dadi, etc. These variant forms of the name in Babylonian inscriptions would in themselves show that the deity was foreign. Dagon, whose worship in Palestine is known from the Old Testa¬ ment, was in previous years, as we have seen, also regarded by Assyriologists as Babylonian. His first appearance known to me in cuneiform is in a personal name in the inscription of Manishtusu (c. 2775 B. C.), which, it might be added, is full of Amorite names. Dungi about 2419 B. C. dedicated a temple to Dagan. Two rulers’ names of the Amorite dynasty of Nisin contain the god’s name. The Amorite king, Hammurabi, calls himself “the warrior of Dagan.” This deity was not recognized as belonging to the pan¬ theon of Babylonia. In Canaan, the Philistines worshipped Dagan at Gaza (Judg. 16:23), and at Ashdod (I Sam. 5:1). There was also a temple of Dagan near Joppa (Josh. 10:41), at present called Beit Dejan. There is another, southeast of Nablus. Josephus mentions a for¬ tress, Dagon, above Jericho {Ant. XII 8:1). It is now recognized by scholars, through the discovery of a few tablets in Mesopotamia, that in the kingdom Khana, on the middle Euphrates, there was a great centre of Dagan worship; and most scholars, I think, are now willing to concede that this was probably the main centre of the worship; and also that he was an Amorite god. In presenting the above facts I have had in mind letting the non- Assyriologist know what a change the discovery of a few tablets in the Amorite land has brought about; and at the same time to call attention to the fact that in Amurru we have these many geographical names connected with Dagan, while in Babylonia there are none; which fact is paralleled in what we know concerning other gods discussed in what follows. 52 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. Nebo, or Nabu, was worshipped at Borsippa near Babylon. The first mention of Nabu and his temple, known to me, is in the reign of Hammurabi, when that king informs us he cared for and built a throne for Nabfi. In this Amorite period names compounded with Nabu appear, many of which can be proved to be Amorite. Nabll does not appear in the Akkadian Name Syllabary, but he does in the Amorite; which fact is very significantIn subsequent years Nabu was included in the Babylonian pantheon. In the late period, Babylonian nomenclature is again filled with Amorite names compounded with Nabti. In Palestine and the surrounding territory, there was first of all Mount Nebo, where Moses died (Nu. 33:47). There was a city Nebo in Moab (Nu. 32:3), probably near the mountain, and one in Judah (Ezra 2:29). According to Jerome’s Onomasticoriy there was a Nebo six miles west of Heshbon, probably the present Neba on the Dead Sea. Whether we will later find another centre of Nebo worship else¬ where in Amurru, as we did that of Dagan, remains to be seen; but knowing of these several geographical names in Palestine mentioned in the early period, and especially Mount Nebo; and also the fact that Nabfi was worshipped only at one city in Baby¬ lonia, besides many other facts, referred to above,^^ there can be no doubt as to Nabfi being Amorite. Ashirta, who also appears in a number of geographical names in Palestine,^^ I feel I have conclusively shown recently, was Amorite; and that the original seat of her cult, as mentioned above, was at Aleppo, where she ruled at the time of Tammuz and Gilgamesh, kings of Erech. Her name was written in Hebrew, Phoenician, Moabitish, Aramaic, South Arabic and Ethiopic, in every instance ** Chiera, Lists of Personal Names {UMBS XI 2), p. 152. See also Empire of the Amorites p. 180 f. “ See ibidem p. 172. II. THE FOUEFOLD AKGUMENT. 53 with an initial ^ayin. When her name first appears in cuneiform, it is written Ashdar, Eshdar, Ishdar; later usually Ishtar. It has always been difficult to understand how Assyriologists have been able to satisfy themselves as to the way the West Semitic forms of this name, which are always written with an initial ^ayin^ could have arisen from the Babylonian Ashdar or Ishtar, in which, in not a single instance, was there even an attempt to reproduce the laryngeal. I know of no effort on the part of Babylonists to show that Ana was worshipped in Palestine.^® The goddess Anoth, or Antu, how¬ ever, is generally recognized as having been worshipped in that land. Antu appears in an inscription, found at Seripul, of Anubanini, king of Lulubu, as the consort of Anu. While Anu of Erech was the father of the gods, and was always foremost in the triad, Anu, Enlil and Ea, the goddess Antu does not occur in early Babylonian inscriptions as being worshipped in that city. This includes the Cassite and even subsequent periods. In the late texts, Antu, especially with the meaning goddess,’^ was introduced at Erech, and coupled with the name of Anu. In Palestine, Beth-Anoth, probably the present Beit *Ainiin, is a city mentioned in Joshua (15:59). Seti I, and Rameses II, refer to Beth-Anoth. Sheshonk captured a city by that name in Judah. Jeremiah grew up at Anathoth, at present called 'Anata, near Jerusalem. The worship of the Amorite An6th was carried comparatively early to Egypt. At Thebes there was a priesthood of the goddess in the time of Thothmes III (1479-1447 B. C.). Rameses II gave his daughter a name which meant daughter of An6th.^^ 2® The name is probably found in Beth 'AnV (Bethany), and in the personal name 'Aner, written An-ram in the Septuagint. The deity is Amorite, see Empire of the Amorites p. 169. 54 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. It is not impossible that *Ana on the Euphrates, in Amurm, was the chief centre of this worship, for close by is *Anatho, which apparently was a twin city of 'Ana.^^ Since the worship of Anoth was not recognized in Babylonia prior to the late period, certainly the origin of the deity is not to be found in that land. Here, it seems to me, is another very obvious and vital point for the Baby- lonist to explain. Another deity worshipped in Palestine, who has generally been regarded as Babylonian, is the one whose name was written ideo- graphically in-IB) for Bit in-IB is mentioned in the Amama tablets as being near Jerusalem. There are one or two occurrences of ^Nin-IB in the Babylonian inscriptions known to me in the Akkad period. But in the nomen¬ clature of the Nisin dynasty (2357-2154 B. C.), when Amorites flooded the country, many names are found compounded with that of the deity, including a king’s name. Thereafter, at Nippur, this deity became very prominent. Recent discoveries in Babylonia, as already mentioned, have shown that the ideogram ^Nin-IB is to be read En-Urta, ^^Lord Urta,” and that the deity, who had originally been feminine, had become masculinized in Babylonia. Elsewhere I have shown that the name of the great Amorite god, Uru, is to be found in the name Jerusalem, which in ancient times was written Uru-salim and Ur-salimmu in cuneiform.. In I' / view of this fact it would seem highly probably that the Amorite city had originally been dedicated to the worship of Uru. And it also seems reasonable that the shrine Bit Nin-IB, or BUh Urta^ '^shrine of Urta,” which was close by the city, was dedicated to the consort of Uru. In view of these facts, and many others presented elsewhere,^^ there can be little doubt that this deity is Amorite. See ibidem 116 f. ** See The Empire of the Amorites. It. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 55 Such a deity as ^‘Moloch/’ whose name was carried to Babylonia, where it was written Malik, as well as the gods Attar, Adon, Gir, etc., need not be discussed here, since they are now generally re¬ garded as Amorite or West Semitic. This concludes the list of deities who have been identified with the West, as far as I know, that have been, or could be cited as Babylonian. In short, not a single one of these deities is Babylonian. Before leaving this subject let us inquire of the Babylonists why such leading gods of Babylonia, as Enlil, ^The lord of landsin the early period, and Marduk, the Bel of Babylon, who usurped Enlil’s position, and from the time of Abraham was the chief deity of the land—why, if their contentions have anything in them, are these gods not named as having also been worshipped in Canaan? It was perfectly clear in the case of Egypt, why the rehgion of that land made no impression upon Syria. The same is true of Babylonia. People from that rich alluvial deposit did not migrate. In short, while we know that the Philistine, the Hittite, Girgashite, and other peoples, had representatives in Palestine, there is not a word in the Old Testament, or in any other inscription, to show that the ‘‘Babylonite’^ lived there, except those whom Sargon brought to Samaria. It seems to me that this brief review of the facts bearing on the question before us, leads to the conclusion that Babylonians did not migrate from the alluvial plain to Canaan; from which it follows that the Babylonian religion was not carried to that land. Although pan-Babylonism, as already stated, is such an extreme position that it has practically exploded itself, there is, however, a phase of it that should at least be briefly mentioned in this con¬ nection. The late Professor Winckler of Berlin, who founded what is generally called the “Astral-mythological School,” attempted to reconstruct the astrological system of the Babylonians. By his work he has contributed considerably toward a better understand- 56 THE OKIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. ing of the subject; but in connection with his researches he has also attempted to show that the Israelite cult was dependent upon a Babylonian original; and that the astral-mythological element is extensively found in the Old Testament. In Winckler^s efforts to prove his contention he made use of the following kind of facts: Abram must be a moon-god, for he went from Ur to Haran, two places identified with that deity. The 318 men Abraham assembled in going after Lot, are the 318 days of the year when the moon is visible. Kirjath-arba, a city in which Abraham lived, means ^^city of four’^; and this refers to the four phases of the moon. The word Beersheba means seven wells’^; this represents the seven days in each phase of the moon. The four wives of Jacob are also the four phases. His twelve sons are the twelve months; Leah’s seven sons are the gods of the week; the 1200 pieces of silver which Benjamin received, are a multiple of the thirty days of the month; and his five changes of raiment are the five intercalary days of the Babylonian year. Although others have popularized this phase of Winckler’s theories, I feel that we need simply have stated some of the argu¬ ments upon which they are based. Moreover, his followers seem to be comparatively few. Let it suffice to say that Israel’s law required that the man who worshipped the sun, moon, or any of the hosts of heaven, should be put to death (Deut. 12:2-7). That such were worshipped in Palestine is very evident; but it cannot be shown that the worship penetrated the religion of Israel. / We know that Egypt established shrines to Amen in Palestine, and that they disappeared without leaving a trace. It is not impossible that the Babylonians may have attempted to do a similar thing. Even had they succeeded, if that had been done, it would prove nothing as regards the religion of Israel. I doubt, however, whether they ever made attempts to do this. Certainly there is not the slightest evidence that they did. II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 57 In reviewing all the material that has been used in the past to show the influence of^the Babylonian religion upon that of Canaan (without considering the stories of creation, deluge, etc., which are discussed below), I feel that there is absolutely nothing upon which the theory rests. These are some of the reasons why I cannot follow those scholars who have promulgated the idea that Canaan was ^^a domain of Babylonian civilization’^; that its religion “had its roots in the Valley of the Euphrates”; that “Babylonian myths were in current circulation in Israel,” and that “when Israel entered the land all these ideas were a part of the mental possession of the people.”2® Amorite Conquests of and Migrations to Babylonia And now let us inquire whether we have knowledge of any Amorite conquests of Babylonia, or of any migrations to that land. In Genesis we have an echo of the Semitic migration when they ,went eastward into “the plain of Shinar,” and built Babel. We find that it can be shown that most of the names of the antediluvian kings of Babylon were Amorite (see Chapter VII). We find also that the first five postdiluvian kings bore Amorite names.It is needless to enlarge upon the significance of these facts. Through a recent discovery, we now know that a usurper named Humbaba, who ruled in the Lebanons, had humiliated Babylonia in the time of Gilgamesh, about 4200 B. C., and that Ishtar, the queen of Aleppo, as mentioned above, was the consort of his predecessor, Tammuz, king of Erech. About a thousand years later, the Amorite city Mari, on the Euphrates, as Ve have already seen, ruled Baby¬ lonia during the reigns of three kings. Many other rulers of Baby¬ lonia, in the centuries which follow, bear Amorite names, as Enbi- History of the Religion of Babylonia and Assyria p. 136. 30 See Empire of the Amorites 80 f. 58 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. Ashdar, Ishu-El, Zi-mutar, Uzi-watar, El-muti, etc. Later, in the time of the Akkad dynasty, about 2800 B. C., we find the nomen¬ clature of the city of Al^ad well filled with Amorite names.The same is true*of the Ur dynasty, from 2474 B. C. About 2350 B. C. the Amorites overthrew the Babylonian rule and completely dom¬ inated the land, establishing three contemporaneous dynasties, the Nisin, the Larsa, and the Babylon; Hammurabi, the Amraphel of the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, being the sixth king of the last mentioned. We know from the thousands of legal and business documents that the nomenclature of this time was especially full of Amorite names. It was in this period that the early version of the Deluge story was transcribed, which the writer feels he has shown is Amorite. Again, in the Assyrian period and in the Neo- Babylonian time, especially after Nebuchadnezzar had carried Judah into captivity, we find many Amorite names and, in particular, hundreds of Jewish names. With the knowledge, therefore, that there was such a constant influx of Amorites in almost every period down to 2000 B. C., as well as in the late periods, we would expect to find that the land was thoroughly permeated with the religions of the Amorites. There is a mass of evidence to prove that this is a fact. The most high god, El, of the Amorites, was early brought into the land. The city of Babylon was dedicated to his worship for the name of this metropolis means ^^Gate {Bah) of El.^^ The city of Der was likewise dedicated to him, for that name was written Dur-El, i. e., Fortress {Dur) of El.^^ Erech very probably also had,El as its patron deity (see also Chapter III). The god Uru, found in five of the antediluvian names of kings, seems to have been brought into the land in many different periods, when migrations took place.The name of the god Amurru is See Scheil, Delegation en Perse II 41 ff. ** See Chapter II, and also Empire of the Amorites 66 ff. II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 59 but another form of this name, for in Aramaic, as we have seen, it was written W (= tJ'ru). At Cutha, he was worshipped under the name of Urra, Urra-gal, ^Hhe great Uru,’^ and Ne-Uru-Gal or Nergal. Urta, or En-Urta, who, as we have seen, was originally the con¬ sort of Uru, was worshipped especially at Nippur, where, as men¬ tioned above, the goddess was masculinized. A study of the nomen¬ clature of that city indicates that the time when this cult became popular, synchronized with the rule of the Amorites in the Nisin- Larsa-Babylon period. Adad, the Hadad of the Old Testament, as we have seen, was early brought into the land by the Amorites, as was also Dagan, famihar to us as the Old Testament Dagon. The gods Ea, Nisaba, Nebo, Ashirta, Adgi, Attar, Gir, Khani, Sharru and many other Amorite deities, the Semitic emigrants, who moved into Babylonia, brought with them. This is a natural conclusion. History records no exception to the rule that migrating people have carried their religion with them. And it is certainly reasonable to infer that they carried with them also their legends. But this is not only a perfectly reasonable supposition; it can also be satisfactorily proved to be a fact. Before leaving the subject of migrations let me digress to say here that what is true of Syria in its relation to Egypt and Baby¬ lonia, is true of Syria in its connections with other lands, such as South Arabia, Greece, and Italy. It is generally admitted for example that extensive religious influences from Amurru were felt in Italy; but it is also admitted, that land gave practically nothing in return to Syria. This movement in the direction of Italy is well attested. Not only did Italy import grain and industrial objects from Syria, but soldiers, workmen, and slaves. The unprec- One occurrence of a name compounded with En-Urta is found in the texts of the previous period. See Barton, UMBS IX 1, 58:1:7. 60 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. edented wealth and splendor of Rome also became very attractive to the merchant and mercenary, as well as to the excess population; so that there was an extensive movement toward Italy. The migra¬ tion of S 3 n:*ians to this land, Professor Cumont informs us, who were faithful to their deities, is responsible for the great religious influ¬ ence that this part of the Orient exerted upon the Roman religion; but on the other hand, he informs us, Rome has given Syria nothing in return. This review of invasions, conquests, and migrations, based on the testimony of the monuments, establishes fully the proposed prin¬ ciples laid down in connection with the spread of cultural ideas and of religious influences. This being true, and with the knowledge that the migratory current was from Amurru to Babylonia, and not vice versa, it follows that the Amorite religions hd,ve influenced those of Babylonia, the land which lies on its border. This, as we have seen, is fully borne out by excavations and research. And this, I maintain, is an exceedingly important argument in showing that the religious literature, including the creation and deluge stories, which Amurru and Babylonia had in common, had its origin in Amurru, whence it was carried with the migrating Semites into Babylonia. The second argument that I desire to use in connection with my thesis is based on a study of climatic conditions in Babylonia and Ami&ru, as well as of the forced which are credited with having given rise to the so-called nature-myths, the stories of the creation and the deluge. The theory of the Babylonian origin of the Hebrew story of creation is largely based upon the idea that it symbolizes the change of seasons from winter to spring; and that this nature- myth had its origin in the heavy winter rains, when the land was 3* Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism 8 f. II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 61 flooded, which were followed by spring, when life again appeared. Likewise the theory of the Babylonian origin of the deluge story has for its basis the idea of ^Hhe yearly phenomenon of the rainy and stormy season, which lasts in Babylonia for several months, during which time whole districts in the Euphrates valley are submerged. In the chapters which follow I shall show that these theories, which are so vital to the position of the Babylonist, are based on a complete misunderstanding of climatic conditions in Babylonia. Moreover, I think it can be conclusively shown that the force in nature which is said to have given rise to these stories, reflects not the climate of Babylonia, but that of Amurru. The third argument I propose using in establishing my thesis is based on the study of the names of deities and persons found in the texts involved. This, in my judgment, is perhaps the most important of the four arguments used. Having already assembled in publications perhaps twenty-five thousand names, gathered from the nomenclature of the cuneiform tablets covering several millen¬ niums,^® it is possible from a study of them to ascertain influences, as well as migrations, that have taken place, in a most remarkable manner. On a basis of the study of the foreign names in the nomenclature of Babylonia, without any other data, it would be possible to reconstruct considerable history of the movements of ancient peoples into that land. In the earliest dynastic lists now known, we find Amorites and other foreign peoples ruling Babylonia. In the collection of names belonging to the Akkad an(J^r dynasties, as we have seen, we find large numbers of Amorite and other foreign names. In the Nisin- ^ t 35 See Dhorme, Bei. zur Assyr. VI 2, 63 ff.; Huber, Personennamen; Ranke, Early Babylonian Personal Names; Clay, Personal Names of the Cassite Period; Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names; Tallqvist, Neohahylonisches Namenbuch; and the indices to many volumes of texts. 62 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. Larsa-Babylon contemporaneous dynasties, there is a great influx of Western Semites. In the Cassite period (1700-1200 B. C.), these are reduced to a minimum, but in place of them we find the nomen¬ clature full of Cassite and Hittite-Mitannian names. In the Neo- Babylonian period we find hundreds of Jewish names; in the Persian period these have greatly multiplied, when large numbers of Persian names are found, including many Egyptian. In the Greek period, many Greek names are found. We know that the Amorites subjugated Babylonia; that the Hittites invaded it; that the Cassites, Persians, and Greeks in certain periods also ruled the land, and that the Jews were carried into exile to Babylonia. The nomenclature reflects all these move¬ ments, and corroborates perfectly the historical data which have already come to light. In the previous chapter we have seen the importance of such studies, how when, following the discovery that the name Amurru was written ^wr {IJru) in Aramaic, it was conjectured on the basis of this, as well as the study of the names of the Nisin dynasty, that the djmasty was Amorite; which has since been definitely corroborated. Another instance that might be cited as regards the importance of these studies is the bearing that a single name often has which occurs in a text. For example, in the well-known Gilgamesh epic the hero fights an enemy in the cedar forests, who was called Hum- baba, which name is also written Hubaba. The scenes of this conflict have for years been placed in Elam, not because we know that a single cedar tree ever grew there, but because of the resem¬ blance of the name Humbaba to that of the Elamite god Humba, which is variously written, as Humman, Humba, Humban, Um- man, Umba, etc. It will be noticed that in no instance is there a reduplication of the consonant h in the god’s name, as in Humbaba. Upon this identification, emphasis also was placed upon the epic II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 63 being based upon a myth, being in part astral, it was said, and in part a nature-myth. Scholars years ago called attention to a name which closely resembled it, found in a legend of Lucian, concerning the building of the temple at Hierapolis, which was in the land where cedars grew; but nevertheless scholars continued to identify the character as an Elamite god. The recent discovery of the name written Huwawa on the early version of the epic found in the Yale Collection; the recent discov¬ ery also that Humbaba was a usurper who had humiliated Baby¬ lonia, as determined from an omen text in the Pierpont Morgan Collection; and the occurrence of the name in the Amorite Name Syllabary found at Nippur, have now definitely established the fact that Humbaba was an Amorite king whose palace was in the cedar forests of Lebanon.^® I have cited this instance to show how important is the correct identification of a single name in a legend; for in many publications Humbaba is regarded as a god of Elam, where cedar forests are supposed to have grown; all of which was based upon this identi¬ fication, which is now proved incorrect. Naturally if an ancient legend were discovered and it contained but a single name, say for example Agamemnon, unless there was scenery that unquestionably reflected another land, scholars would have little hesitation in giving their view of its origin. In using this argument based on the study of names in connection with the creation and deluge stories, I might add that it will be seen that conclusions rest not upon a single name, but upon many. The fourth argument that I wish to use in my efforts to prove the Amorite origin of these stories is based on a study of certain 36 See Empire of the Amorites 87 f; Jastrow-Clay, An Early Version of the Gilgor mesh Epic p. 23; and A Hebrew Deluge Story 49 f. 64 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. literary and linguistic evidence found in them. I fully appreciate that here there will be a difference of opinion expressed. This will largely arise from the fact that my point of view is totally different from that of most Assyriologists as regards the relative position of the Babylonian language in the Semitic group. The prevailing view is that the Babylonian or Akkadian language antedates the Amorite group (^. e., Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic) by many centuries; and that, generally speaking, when these languages have words in common with the Babylonian, espe¬ cially when they are not found in Arabic, they have had their origin in Babylonia. This understanding is due to a number of reasons. Arabia, as already stated, is considered by these scholars to be ^^the home of the Semites,’’ and its language is the source of all in the Semitic group. Syria and Palestine received their first Semitic peoples from Arabia about 2500 B. C. The civihzation of Syria and Palestine was therefore of comparatively late development, and was extensively influenced by the Babylonian. My own understanding of the situation is totally different. The cradle of the Semites may have rocked in Arabia; this may even have occurred at the North Pole, where some Indo-European scholars think Aryan had its origin. I only know that it is now proved that the antiquity of the civilization of Amurru synchronizes with the earliest found in Eg 5 rpt and Babylonia. I believe that excavations in Syria will reveal the fact that its civilization greatly antedated that of Egypt and Babylonia. Further, I know that there is no basis for the Arabian wave theory of migrations to account for the Semitic inhabitants of Amurru and Babylonia; and I believe, as already mentioned, that Amorites, who as we definitely know did migrate in all early periods into the Babylonian alluvium, furnished it with its Semitic inhabitants. Doubtless many Arabs also trekked in from the desert at the same time; but of this we have no evidence. Further, I believe that what we call Semitic II. THE FOURFOLD ARGUMENT. 65 Babylonian is a dialect of the Amorite language under the influence of the Sumerians, who introduced their script in the land, and who are probably responsible for many of the grammatical peculiarities of the Babylonian language. In other words, I believe that the Babylonian is a broken down Amorite language which in all periods, due to migrations, was influenced by the mother tongue. To give here all my reasons for this understanding of the language, is impossible, and also unnecessary. I have simply given my view of the origin of the language for the purpose of showing why scholars will differ, at least as regards some of the linguistic evidence which I propose to offer for the Amorite origin of the creation and deluge stories. I shall give some examples, however, which are beyond any cavil; but until the relation of the Hebrew and Babylonian languages is viewed differently than it is at present, it is expected that many will refuse to accept the conclusion that a word is foreign when it has been met with in Babylonian literature, even if it is well known in the Amorite group. It does not matter to them whether it is obsolete, or it is alone found in a list of words where it is explained by a well-known Babylonian word. Nor does it matter whether the root of the word has a wide extended use in Hebrew or Aramaic, and is not found in Babylonian, except in the text of the story under consideration. Fortunately I can produce some linguistic and some literary evidences which lie beyond the possibility of such opposition. Ill THE CREATION STORY It is generally admitted that certain parallel ideas which are found expressed in the literature of ancient Israel concerning the creation of the world, and in a story of creation as handed down by the Babylonians, have had a common origin. These embrace the ideas that prior to the creation a watery chaos existed; that the deep was personified by a monster, designated as Tehom and Tiamat; that Jehovah or Marduk went forth to battle with this monster, who was slain; after which the firmament, the luminaries, and man were created. These and other points of resemblance, it is generally admitted, leave no doubt as to there being a relation¬ ship between the cosmogony of Israel and that handed down by the Babylonians. It naturally followed that either the Biblical conception was borrowed from the Babylonian; or the Babylonian was borrowed from the Biblical; or both were founded on a common primitive source. Scholars generally have dismissed the second supposition as an impossibility; and the third is excluded on the ground that the stories contain a large percentage of Babylonian ideas. The Biblical conception of creation, therefore, they say, is of Babylonian origin. George Smith, who found and translated for the first time many of the fragments of the Babylonian story, took the position that it originated in Babylonia. This was also the view of Professor Sayce, another of the pioneers in this field of research, who later wrote concerning the subject: “The elements indeed of the Hebrew cosmology are all Babylonian; even the creative word itself was a Babylonian conception, as the story of Merodach has shown us.^^^ ' Religions of Babylonia and Assyria p. 395. ( 66 ) III. THE CREATION STORY. 67 In the nearly fifty years which have passed since the first transla¬ tion was made, this has become the prevailing view; and it has been generally accepted everywhere as fully established. ^^In fact/^ as the late Canon Driver has written, ^^no archaeologist questions that the Biblical cosmogony, however altered in form and stripped of its original polytheism, is, in its main outlines, derived from Babylonia. Before considering the arguments for and against this theory, let us briefly review the sources of our knowledge of the Biblical and Babylonian cosmological ideas. One of the results of the literary analysis of the Old Testament is that scholars generally accept the view that there are two creation stories in Genesis, the second of which begins in the middle of the fourth verse of the second chapter. As is well known, there are other passages in the poetical books of the Old Testament which give us additional light upon Israel’s conception of the creation, especially those which refer to a struggle between Yahweh and a being who is regarded as having personified the primaeval ocean. Several different names of this monster are found, as Tehom, Rahab, Leviathan, Dragon {tannin) and Serpent (nakhash). The first mentioned is the same word which is found in the second verse of Genesis and elsewhere in tbe Old Testament, where it is trans¬ lated “deep.” In some of these poetical passages a leading thought can clearly be traced: namely, that Yahweh had a great conflict with this being, after whose defeat the heavens and the earth were created. In this conflict we learn that the hostile creature had helpers, who were also overcome. In some passages, however, the monster represented a nation which was unfriendly to Israel. The more important of all these passages which have been pre¬ viously assembled by GunkeL and others, follow: * Driver, TJie Book of Genesis, p. 30. * See Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos 29 ff. 68 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. Psalm 89:9 ff. When the waves thereof arise, thou (Yahweh) stillest them. Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces as one that is slain; Thou hast scattered thine enemies with the arm of thy strength. The heavens are thine, the earth is also thine: The world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them. The north and the south, thou hast created them. Isaiah 51:9 f. Put on strength, O arm of Yahweh; Arise as in the days of old, the generation of ancient times. Art thou not he who cut Rahab in pieces, pierced the Dragon? Art thou not he who dried up the sea, the waters of the great Tehom, Who made the depths of the sea a way to pass over? Job 26:12 f. He stirreth up the sea with his power. And by his understanding he smiteth through Rahab. By his spirit the heavens are garnished; His hand hath pierced the swift Serpent. Psahn 74:13 f. Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: Thou breakest the heads of the Dragon in the waters. Thou breakest the heads of Leviathan in pieces. Thou gavest him to be food to the people inhabiting the wilderness, Thou didst cleave fountain and flood; Thou driest up mighty rivers. The day is thine, the night is also thine: Thou hast prepared the light and the sun. Thou hast set all the boundaries of the earth: Thou hast made summer and winter. Isaiah 27:1 In that day Yahweh with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the swift serpent, and Leviathan the crooked serpent, and he will slay the Dragon that is in the sea. Isaiah 30:7 For Egypt helpeth in vain and to no purpose Therefore have I called her Rahab that sitteth still. Psalm 87:4 Rahab and Babylon I proclaim my votaries. HI. THE CREATION STORY. 69 Besides these passages there are others which refer to Tehom, Rahab, etc."* Primarily, the monster personifies the primaeval waters, but several passages show that it symbolically represents an unfriendly power. Egypt especially figures in this capacity. This fact reminds us of the Phoenician legend of Sanchuniathon, in which we learn that the god ^^Kronos (El), visiting the country of the south, gave all Egypt to the god Taautus (Tiamat), that it might be his kingdom.’^® These, as well as other passages, show that in Israel the belief existed that there had been a great conflict prior to the creation of the heavens and the earth, between Yahweh and a primaeval monster, with whom were associated other beings termed dragons. Some seem to think that this conflict underlies the thought expressed in the second verse of Genesis, because of the use of the word tehom. However, certain of these passages, as already mentioned, also show that this monster symbolically represented an unfriendly nation; the same, as we shall find, was the case also in Babylonian literature. Throughout the Old Testament the word tehdm has the meaning ‘^deep,’’ as well as ‘^the primaeval waters,^^ and their personifica¬ tion. It is generally held by Babylonists that such a crude concep¬ tion as the strife between Yahweh and the monster, which idea was borrowed from Babylonia, was not tolerated in the creation story, as it jarred upon the purer theological conceptions and in conse¬ quence was suppressed. The idea, however, of the firmament, to keep back the waters, was retained. Eusebius has handed down some fragments of the Phoenician cosmogony by Sanchuniathon, which he found in the writings of Philo of Byblos. In this Phoenician cosmogony, we are told that ^^as the first principle of the universe he posits murky, windy air, < See Deut. 33:13; Job 9:11 ff; 38:16 f; Psalms 36:6; 41:19; 42:7; 77:16 f; 91:13; 97:7; Prov. 3:20; Isaiah 4:6; Ezekiel 29:3; Amos 7:4; etc. ^ Cory, Ancient Fragments p. 16. 70 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. or a breath of murky air, and turbid chaos, dark as Erebus; these were infinite and throughout a long lapse of time limitless” (see Appendix C). These stories from Amurru, including the Biblical cosmological expressions, it is generally held, make everything emanate from a watery chaos. It is this idea that the Babylonists have asserted was borrowed from Babylonia. As is so well known, the Babylonians have handed down several creation stories written in Semitic and Sumerian; but only one has any relation to this conception as handed down by the Hebrews; that is, the one which they called Enuma elish, ‘^When above”, which are the first two words of the story. One recension of this myth was written on seven tablets, and deposited in the library of Ashurbanipal. These, together with some fragments written in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods, have reached the British Museum in a fragmentary condition; and have been studied for years, and translated many times. During the excavations of the German Oriental Society at the city of Ashur, some few years ago, portions of another recension, written several centuries earlier, were found. These tablets and fragments fortunately fill some important gaps in the narrative previously published. A complete translation of all the parts that have been recovered is given in Appendix A. The composite character of the creation story, as handed down by the Babylonians, was recognized years ago. During the long process of editing, especially after it had been made a paean in honor of Marduk, many modifications had taken place. It was also recognized years ago that two different conflicts were embodied in the narrative; and also that in it two or more versions were harmonized. It is not necessary to discuss here these theories, nor the process that has resulted in the many changes and difficulties that are III. THE CREATION STORY. 71 found in the story. ^ Suffice it to say that there are two conflicts set forth in the epic; the one is found in the first seventy-seven lines, and is immediately followed by the second. The first resulted in the slaying of the primaeval Apsu by Ea; and the second, of his consort, Tiamat, by Marduk. An outline of the first conflict is as follows: Before the heavens were named and the dry ground was gathered together, the primaeval creators Apsu and Tiamat begat the gods Lakhmu and Lakhamu, who in turn begat Anshar and Kishar; and these brought forth Anu, who begat Ea. The gods annoyed the primaeval Apsu and Tiamat by their deeds. With Mummu, his messenger, Apsu went to Tiamat with a plan to destroy them; but Tiamat was opposed to this. The all-wise Ea, perceiving the plan of Apsu, cunningly applied an incantation, which resulted in Apsu being overcome by sleep; when Ea bound and slew him. Mummu, who then became violent, was also killed. Ea then established upon Apsu his dwelling. In his chamber he rested peacefully. He named it a'psu; and he founded shrines. Around its place he established his dry ground {giparrii). The story of the second conflict, beginning with the seventy- eighth line, has been edited to glorify Marduk, the god of Babylon; and also in the interests of the god Ashur. The story of the fight is greatly drawn out by repetitions. An outline of it follows: Lakhmu and Lakhamu, in the abode of the fates, in the midst of the apsuy begat Anshar and Kishar. The primaeval deities sought vengeance because Apsu, their begetter, had been slain. They banded together at the side of the fuming and raging Tiamat, and prepared for battle. We then learn that Tiamat, under the title Ummu-khubur, ^‘mother of the assembly,^’ who formed all things,’’ bore monster serpents, sharp of tooth, and merciless of attack. She filled their bodies with venom instead of blood. She created 72 THE OKIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. vipers, dragons, raging hounds, hurricanes, tempests, etc., to assist her. She took Kingu for her spouse, and exalted him by giving hi m the tablets of destiny, and the power of deity {anutu). The all-wise Ea, also perceiving this plot, went and informed Anshar, his father. He said: ^‘Tiamat, who begat us, hates us’’; ^^and all the gods have turned to her.” Anshar sent Anu to stand before Tiamat, that her spirit might be appeased, and her heart be merciful; but Anu could not withstand her awful visage and her mutterings. Whereupon, Marduk rejoiced his father by asking to be allowed to accomplish all that was within his heart, when he said: ^Hf I, your avenger, enchain Tiamat, and give you life, pro¬ claim an assembly, and exalt my destiny.” Anshar requested Gaga, his messenger, to repeat everything before the gods, his fathers, and to make ready a banquet for them, that they might decree the fate of Marduk. When Lakhmu and Lakhamu heard what was going on, they cried aloud; and the Igigi wailed bitterly. The gods assembled; they ate and drank; they prepared for Marduk a lordly chamber; they proclaimed him chief among the great gods. They said: ^‘Thy word is Anu,” “we give thee sover¬ eignty over the whole world.” They set a garment in their midst; Marduk was told to give the command, and it vanished; then to give another, when it returned. They bestowed sceptre, throne, and ring upon him. Marduk chose his weapons; he set the lightning in front of him; with a burning flame he filled his body; he stationed the four winds behind him; he created an evil wind, the tempest and hurricanes; he raised the thunderbolts; he mounted his chariot, yoked with four horses, and advanced toward the raging Tiamat; to whom, while she uttered rebellious words, he gave the challenge for the combat. She was like one possessed; she lost her reason, and uttered wild piercing cries; she pronounced her spell. III. THE CKEATION STORY. 73 Marduk spread out his net and caught her; he let loose the evil wind in her face. As she opened her mouth, he drove it in, and it filled her body, which with his spear he burst. When Tiamat was slain, her host of helpers scattered to save their lives; but Marduk took them captive with his net, and broke their weapons. He took ^Hhe tablets of destiny’’ from Kingu, and slew him. He then stood upon Tiamat’s hinder parts, and with his merciless club, smashed her skull. He split her open like a flat fish into two halves; with one half of her he estabhshed a covering for heaven. He fixed a bolt; he stationed a watchman; he bade them not to let her waters come forth; and he placed the dwelling of Ea over against the apsii. This, in brief, is the story of the fight between Marduk and Tiamat. In meeting all the arguments that have been presented by Baby- lonists, as well as all that can be offered in order to substantiate the idea that the cosmology, as found in the Old Testament, and in the Enuma elish, originated in Babylonia, and in presenting my own proof that it emanated from Amurru, I will follow the four arguments outlined in Chapter II. The first of these has been fully presented, namely, that since migrations from Babylonia to Amurru are not known to have taken place, religious influences from Babylonia should not have been felt in that land; and since migrations in all periods from Amurru into the adjoining alluvial plain are known to have taken place, religious influences from Amurru should have been felt in the land; and, moreover, that these postulates have been fully borne out by excavations and research. It follows, therefore, that the religious literature, which Amurru and Babylonia had in common, if it had its origin in either country, was certainly carried by the migrating Semites into Babylonia from Amurru. As the second step in the consideration of this problem let us now proceed to present the proofs that have been advanced for the 74 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. Babylonian origin of the myth. In searching the literature on the subject, I find that there have practically been offered but two argu¬ ments, one bearing on climate, and the other on numbers, which are fully considered in what follows. The second of the two arguments that have been offered, which I think will be found to be rather negligible, is based on the division of the creation days into seven, i. e., six of creation and the sabbath, which is the same as the number of tablets on which the Enuma elish, or the Babylonian story, was written, namely seven. This argument has been repeated many times, though not by all Baby- lonists; and has been quite recently emphasized by Professor Barton, who says: ^^Each account is arranged in a series of sevens, the Babylonian in seven tablets, the Hebrew in seven days. Each of them places the creation of man in the sixth division of its series. . . . The creation of the firmament he [the J. writer] transposes from the fourth tablet to the second day; the intrigues of the gods of tablet three are replaced by the appearance of the dry land and the growth of grass, and the creation of the heavenly bodies is taken from the fifth tablet and placed on the fourth day.^’® It should be stated here that the Babylonian story makes no reference to the creation of vegetation, birds, and fishes; nor does it refer to beasts and reptiles, except those created to help Tiamat in her conflict. There can be little doubt that prior to the time when the Marduk schoolmen used the epic to glorify their deity, when the vain repe¬ titions were doubtless introduced, and the stolen titles of other gods were added to those of Marduk, the epic had been written on fewer tablets; yet we are asked to believe that the division of the Hebrew story of creation into six days and the sabbath, originated in the number of tablets it required to hold this epic, because we find in ® See Barton, Jour. Bib. Lit. XL (1921) 93 f. III. THE CREATION STORY. 75 each instance the number seven/’ and the fact that the creation of man in both instances is connected with the number ^^six.” I do not think it necessary to multiply words as regards this argument for the Babylonian origin of the Biblical story of creation; let us tabulate, however, the acts of creation for the six days in the Hebrew story, and what the seven tablets contain. Biblical Story Day 1: Heavens, earth, and light cre¬ ated. Day 2: Firmament created. Day 3: Gathering of waters: ground and vegetation seen. Day 4: Sun, moon, and stars created. Day 5: Birds and fishes created. Day 6 : Beasts, reptiles, and man cre¬ ated. Day 7: The Sabbath. The Seven Tablets 1: Ea-Apsu conflict; apsiX estab¬ lished. Marduk-Tiamat fight. 2: The fight continued. 3: The fight continued. 4: The fight continued; firma¬ ment established. 5: Appointment of the stations of the gods, stars, luminaries, divisions of year. 6: Creation of man. Titles of Marduk. 7: Titles of Marduk. Now let us face the one all-important argument that has been offered for the Babylonian origin of the Hebrew story. It is re¬ garded as a nature-myth which had its origin in the heavy rains and the annual inundations. The myth, in other words, S3anbolizes, we are told, ‘Hhe change of seasons from winter to spring.” Professor Zimmern of Leipzig, in following Professor Jensen, pre¬ sented the argument thus: the Babylonian would say to himself, ^The world must first have come into being just as it still comes into being year by year and day by day. Just as in every spring Marduk, god of the spring sun, calls forth the level land that has been flooded by the winter rains, the deep, or Tiamat, so in the first 76 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. spring, at the first New Year, the world came into being after a combat between Marduk and Tiamat.’”^ The late Professor Driver of Oxford, following Professors Jastrow and Zimmern, summed up the argument thus: ^‘During the long winter, the Babylonian plain, flooded by the heavy rains, looked like a sea (Bab. tiamtUy tidmat). Then comes the spring, when the clouds and water vanish, and dry land and vegetation appear. So, thought the Babylonian, must it have been in the first spring, at the first New Year, when, after a fight between Marduk and Tiamat, the organized world came into being.”® This is the one important argument on which the Babylonists have based their theory that the Hebrew story of creation was borrowed from Babylonia. You will find it reproduced again and again; it is deeply rooted everywhere. It is, however, entirely fallacious; it is due to a complete misunderstanding of the climatic conditions in Babylonia. In the first place, the rivers do not flood in the winter—in fact, from October to January inclusive, the water in the river is at its lowest level. Following the melting of the snow in the mountains of Armenia, the rivers flood in March, April, May, and June,® in other words, in the spring months after the winter is passed and gone. They are at the highest in April and May. This com¬ pletely disproves one part of the argument. A similar fate awaits the other part. Babylonia could well nigh be classed with desert lands. Some farmers, depending upon the rain, do sow in the winter months, and get results, providing the rains materialize; but frequently it happens that they do not. In the winter of 1919-20, the writer found that the rains in Babylonia had not been sufficient to bring ^ Zimmern, The Babylonian and the Hebrew Genesis p. 25. ® Driver, The Booh of Genesis p. 28. Cf. also King, Schweich Lectures p. 128. ^ See Willcocks, The Irrigation of Mesopotamia p. 5. III. THE CKEATION STORY. 77 out the ordinary verdure, leaving the land even in spring looking like a desert. The crops of the winter season, consisting principally of wheat, barley, beans, and roots, need irrigation from November to May.i® Without the aid of the rivers and the irrigation ditches, the country would be a complete waste; and it would be no place for man to live. If the rains are scanty on the whole, the native is pleased, because of the damage which heavy rains do to his mud house, or because they beat through the flimsy reed-hut in which he lives. The rivers, in short, furnish the land with its ^Tife blood. Sir William Willcocks gives us observations on the climate for seven years, taken at Baghdad by the Meteorological Department of India, in which the average rainfall for the year is given as 4.98 inches. In one of the seven years an exceptionally heavy fall of 10.23 is recorded; the lowest being 2.78 inches.The latter amount is about the average given by the German scientists, who have also kept records of the rainfall. Koldewey, who excavated at Babylon for about sixteen years, informs us that rain is very scanty in Babylonia. He writes: ^‘I believe if all the hours in the whole year in which there were more than a few drops of rain were reckoned up, they would barely amount to seven or eight days. The annual downfall has been registered by Buddensieg at seven centimetres ( = 2.80 inches). The fall of 2.78 inches of 1909 at Baghdad, which is about the average fall of rain given by the German scientist at Babylon, distributed by months was as follows: October .25 (in two rains); November .25 (four); December .77 (four); January .06 (two); February .70 (five); March .28 (two); April .33 (three); May .14 (two); making in all 2.78 inches.We would compare this fall of Willcocks, Ibidem p. 7. Ibidem 74 ff. 12 Koldewey, The Excavations at Babylon p. 74. 12 See Willcocks, Ibidem 77 ff. 78 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. rain with our light summer showers. Banks, who also excavated in Babylonia, writes: ^^The rains are not continuous as in other parts of the Orient, for they come with no greater frequency than during a New England summer, and it is then that Babylonia possesses one of the most delightful of climates.^ It is only necessary to contrast this situation with the statements that scholars have been making for years, in order to ascertain how baseless they are. But we need not simply register negative results in connection with the climate. Let us now inquire what the meteorological reports of the rain¬ fall in Syria and Palestine inform us. At Jerusalem, where records have been kept for over fifty years, the average is 26.16 inches (13.39 to 41.62); at Haifa the average is 27.75; at Beirut 35.87; and in the Lebanon mountains, about 50 inches.Most of the rain in Syria falls in the three winter months, December, January, and February. An average rainfall of 35.87, or 50 inches, naturally means that in some years there is a much greater fall. What such torrential downpours, which occur in the three cold winter months, mean to the people, and what happens often to the towns situated in the fertile plains and valleys, it is not difficult to imagine. We have therefore seen that the flooding of the rivers in Baby¬ lonia occurs not in winter; that the average fall of rain is exceed¬ ingly small; and that in contrast with this situation, the average fall of rain for Syria is about ten times as great. It should neces¬ sarily follow, therefore, that if, as scholars say, this is a nature- myth which symbolizes the change of seasons from winter to spring, reflecting the climate of the land, and if it had its origin either in Amurru or Babylonia, it was certainly indigenous in the former. We have not yet discussed all that this argument of the Babylonists implies. This will be covered fully under the Banks, Bismaya p. 352. See the International Bible Encyclopaedia p. 2526. III. THE CREATION STORY. 79 third head, in the discussion of the names that are contained in the stories. Under the third division of the discussion as outlined in the second chapter, we now come to an examination of the names of deities with reference to the source whence they came, beginning with the primaeval gods Apsu, Tiamat, and Mummu. When George Smith first interpreted the creation fragments, he translated Apsu ^Hhe abyss,” and Mummu-Tiamat ^Hhe chaos (or water),” and Tiamat “the sea.”^® For a long time, scholars followed Smith in translating Apsu and Tiamat in this way. The only recent translations, however, that preserve Smithes idea, are those of Dhorme, who translated Apsu ^^de Tocean” (1907) and Barton, who translated Apsu Abyss,” and Tiamat ^^Sea” (1922).All other recent translators consider Apsu and Tiamat as proper names, e.g., Jensen (1900),King (1902, 1916), 2 ® Rogers (1912),2i Jastrow (1914 ),22 Ebeling (1921),23 Ungnad (1921),Budge (1921),25 and Luckenbill (1921 ).26 In Babylonian apsu means “ocean, deep.” Some Assyriologists think, since the ideogram ZU-AB is used for this word, that the root of it is the Semitic zdhu, “to flow.” Others hold that apsu is Babylonian; and still others, Sumerian; but all seem to agree, as far as I can see, that it is the origin of the Hebrew ’epes. In other words, in spite of the fact that there is a clear etymology for the Chaldean Account of Genesis p. 65. Choix de Textes Religieux Assyro-Bahyloniens p. 3. Archaeology and the Bible p. 235. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek p. 2. Seven Tablets of Creation p. 2; and Schweich Lectures (1916) p. 122. 21 Cuneiform Parallels p. 3. 22 Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions p. 69. 23 Das Babylonische Weltschopfungslied p. 14. 24 Die Religion der Babylonier und Assyrier p. 27. 23 The Babylonian Legends of Creation p. 32. 28 Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang. XXXVIII, p. 15. 80 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. word in Hebrew, while there is none in Babylonian, it nevertheless is said to have originated in the latter language. While both a'psu and tidmat are translated ocean,the former is regarded as refer¬ ring to “sweet water,” and the latter to “salt water.” The basis for this remarkable distinction is the connection of Apsu with Ea, “the god of the springs,” who really slew him, and Tiamat with the “ocean.” In the Old Testament, the meaning “ocean, deep, abyss” for ^epes is wholly unknown. It means “the end, nought,” etc. It refers to the extreme limit of the earth. It is from the root ^ps “to come to an end, to cease.” Not only the verb is in use in Hebrew, but a derivative, ^opes. The poetical and cosmological idea expressed by ’epes, occurring in the plural ’ap^se, in the phrase “ends of the earth,” is found fourteen times in the Old Testament. Let the following passage from Proverbs (30:4) suffice to illustrate its use: Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in his garment? Who has raised up all the ends (’ap^se) of the earth? And let us here inquire as to the meaning of apsu in the Enuma elish. Besides the personal name, this passage (lines 69 ff) occurs: He bound him, namely Apsu, and slew him. He established upon apsu his dwelling. In his chamber he rested peacefully. He named it apsu, he founded shrines. Around its place (ashru) he established his dry ground (giparru). There is here no intimation that apsu has anything to do with water. The proper understanding of this passage implies that out of Apsu, Ea made apsu, the place upon which he built his dwelling, referring to the temple at Eridu; where he also established shrines; III. THE CREATION STORY. 81 and around which place he created earth. The word ashru place/^ could scarcely be used in connection with the ocean. Does this, therefore, sound like ^^a watery chaos,’^ or the “water beneath the earth This passage appears to me to reflect the movement of the Semites in going to “the end’’ of land, where Ea’s temple was built. The cosmological idea expressed by aysu in this story, is identical with that of the Hebrews ^epes, for to them it was the extreme part of the earth, the land’s end, which Apsu personified. That is, to the Semite at Eridu apsu was the “dry land” that was created; at the point where, at that time, the land ended and the great waters began. In this connection, let us look at some other occurrences of apsu in the cuneiform literature. The Bilingual Babylonian Story of Creation, or the beginnings of Eridu, which was first translated by Dr. Pinches,27 in referring to the time before vegetation had been created, and buildings were erected in the alluvial plain (see Appen¬ dix B), reads as follows from the sixth line, telling of the time when: Nippur was not made, Ekur was not built; Erech was not made; E-anna was not built; The apsu was not made, Eridu was not built; The holy house, the house of the gods, his habitation was not made. All lands were sea. When what was in the sea was pressed out. At that time Eridu was made, Esagil was built; The temple.where in the apsu, Lugal-du-azag had dwelt. Babylon was built; Esagil was finished. In the last three lines, we can see the work of the priests of Babylon who rewrote the poem to glorify their god Marduk. Certainly the temple of Eridu and its shrines were not built in the ocean. To translate apsu “deep” in the eighth line, as well as 2'^ Jour. Royal Asiatic Society XXIII 393 ff. 82 THE OKIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. in the thirteenth line, as has been done by Assyriologists, I think, is a mistake. It unquestionably refers to the land on which Eridu has been built, namely the land^s end. Professor Jastrow in translating apsu “deep,^^ as is usually done, recognized that the line was in contradiction to hne ten, ^‘All lands were sea.’^ He, therefore, proposed that lines nine to eleven belong to a Nippur version, in contradistinction to the Eridu version.^* But by translating apsu as ^epes, this proposal becomes unnecessary. In a ritual text concerning the restoration of the temple, which Weissbach published,^^ we find this passage: Ea (Nu-dim-mud) created apsu, his dwelling place. Ea pinched off clay from the apsu. He created KuUa (the brick god) for the restoration [of temples].’’ It would seem somewhat difficult to pinch clay for the making of bricks, off ‘Hhe ocean,” as apsu is usually translated in this passage. In the Gilgamesh story of the flood, Ea advised the hero, as regards the construction of the ship to cover it with a roof. He says: ^ ^ Upon the apsu protect it with a shdshu ” (line 31). The hero later says: laid its hull; I enclosed it with a shdshu” (line 60). I have endeavored to show elsewhere that shdshUy the course of the sun-god in the heavens, is the Babylonian word for ^ffirma- ment,” corresponding to the Hebrew rdqVa\ the vault above the earth; and that it is here used figuratively for the roof or covering of the ship.^® With this understanding that shdshu is the covering which rested upon its sides, ^. c., the apsu or ^‘ends of the ship,” we have an illustration of the firmament resting upon the or ‘‘ends of the earth.” In the Enuma elish the shdshu is repre¬ sented by the halved Tiamat, the ends of which also rested on the Jour. Amer. Or. Soc. XXXVI p. 283. 29 Bahylonische Miscellen XII: 25-27. See A Hebrew Deluge Story 73 f. III. THE CREATION STORY. 83 This also is the Hebrew conception, as shown by the passage: “The pillars of heaven tremble,Job 26:11.^^ I have never seen this conception of the earth^s construction presented; namely, that the firmament rested upon the “ends of the earth nor, as far as I can ascertain, has it been appreciated that the first act of creation in the Enuma elish was the founding of the apsH. If apsiX in Babylonian, as I maintain, originally meant the ends of the earth, and is an Amorite word, how can we explain that in Babylonian it came to have the meaning “ocean, deep''? When the Amorites descended from the higher lands into the alluvium they went to the land's “end," and there established a city, which we know as Eridu. This to them was a veritable ^epes. Here, on land only a few feet above the sea, like the present Basra, they established their permanent home. Situated in the extreme delta, through which at that time doubtless many streams in flood season flowed, whereby the water could easily escape, probably on what appeared as a shoal in flood season, they could live with much less labor than farther north where the rivers had to be harnessed. This very probably explains why Eridu was “the first city" built in the plain. It seems to me that this is reflected in the Bilingual Babylonian Creation Story, where we read that “the lord Marduk filled in an embankment at the edge of the sea" (Appendix B:30). It is not difficult to understand how their deity, Ea, who in their native land had been “god of the earth" (i. e., En-Ki), and also of its springs and fountains which had made the rivers, became at Eridu, where “fountains of the deep" were unknown, the god of the rivers and the ocean. My colleague Professor Hopkins calls my attention to the fact that in Aryan mythology there are several examples of agricultural deities or gods of springs becoming gods of the ocean. Poseidon, though in Homer a god of the sea, has My colleague, Professor Torrey, has called my attention to this passage. 84 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. clear traces of an earlier more general character of a god of nourish¬ ing water. In the Peloponnesus, he was specially honored as god of fertility, not only of crops but also of flocks; the rearing of horses was his peculiar care.^^ Parallel to this is the growth of Neptune, who about 400 B. C. became identified with Poseidon, when he also became wholly an ocean-god. In other words, Neptune, like Poseidon, was first a god of springs and fertilizing waters before becoming a sea-god.^® Professor Hopkins also calls my attention to the fact that in India, Varuna is god of rain and of sky-water first, before he be¬ comes the ocean-god; later when the people reached the sea, they called their general water-god the god of the ocean; that is, he was always god of water of all kinds; and oceanwas simply included in his province. Furthermore, he became ‘^god of the West^' on account of the location of the sea (Arabian ocean), as well as ‘^god of the ocean. There is a passage in the Bilingual Babylonian Story of Creation, quoted above (see also Appendix B), which has never been under¬ stood, and which, it seems to me, throws important light on the subject. After referring to the time before vegetation has appeared, and temples and cities had been built, the phrase ^^all lands were sea,^^ is followed by the passage in question: 1-nu sha ki-rib tam-tim ra-^u-um-ma. This is immediately followed by the words: ^^At that time Eridu was built.’’ The passage, therefore, should refer to what happened between the time when all was sea, and the building of Eridu, and is therefore the crucial one of this story of creation. Following are some of the translations of the passage. The words that are italicized represent the word ratuma. ” See Fairbanks, Greek Religion p. 154. ** See Georg Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Romer p. 250. See Hopkins, Religions of India p. 67. III. THE CREATION STORY. 85 When within the sea there was a stream. (Pinches.)^® When within the sea the current was. (Sayce.) Da die Mitte des Meers ein Wasserhechen war. (Jensen.) At that time there was a movement in the sea. (King.) Das Feste der Insel war Wasserfiuss. (Jeremias.) When the middle of the sea was a water-basin. (Rogers.) At a time when there was a ditch{?) in the midst of the sea. (Jastrow.) At the time that the mid-most sea was [shaped like] a trough. (Budge.) Als die Mitte des Meeres ein Rinnsal war. (Ungnad.) There is a foreign word rdtUy found in a text of the late Sargon, and in some explanatory lists,^® which seems to have been properly identified with the Hebrew rahat ^trough, basin’’; and this is the basis for the translations given above. But it must be quite apparent that a trough, or a current, a basin, a ditch, or a stream, in the midst of the sea, scarcely makes sense, and does not account for the dry ground upon which Eridu was built. There is, however, a Hebrew word which I think may throw light upon the difficulty. In Job (16:11), there are parallel phrases reading thus: God delivered me to the ungodly And cast me out (yirient) upon the hands of the wicked. Practically all commentators haves uggested that yirient has been incorrectly handed down, and that it should be ylr^nty from a root yarat, found in a single passage in Numbers (22:32),37 which also does not seem to be understood. But there does not seem to be any need for this emendation. The root ratah, in late Hebrew meaning ^Ho wring out, press out,” seems to be that of the word in the above passage, which is usually translated, ^^cast out”; and this is also the root of ratuma in the Babylonian story, and not rahat. The passage can then be translated: ‘^Then what was in ^ The publications, in which the translations are found, are given in a foot-note to Appendix B. 3® See Muss-Arnolt, Ass. Die. p. 961. 3’ See Gesenius-Buhl p. 319; and the recent commentaries on The Book of Job, by Driver and Gray, Ball, etc. 86 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. the midst of the sea was pressed out (wrung out, cast out),^^ namely the ^^dry land,^^ which was the ^epes. With this meaning the pas¬ sage describes the appearance of ground at Eridu, for we know that the Persian Gulf recedes each year. This is also the Hebrew conception of the formation of ^Hhe dry land,^^ as we learn from Genesis, and also from the cosmological passage referred to (in Job 30:4), where the ^epes was raised up^^ from the sea. While the word heqtm can be translated “established,^^ as is usually done in the passage, every Hebrew scholar knows that it literally means “raised up^’; and this expresses the cosmological idea that is found in the Babylonian story. If my interpretation of ratu is correct, it would seem to be a word used by the Amorites who lived at Eridu. Moreover, it will be interesting to have the Sumerist, who holds that this bilingual story was originally Sumerian, explain why the Sumerian scribe used the word rad (there being no J in Sumerian) for ratu] and it will also be interesting to have him explain why the Sumerians used the sign RAD for the Semitic ratu “basin,’’ when his own word for “basin” was shita. Perhaps later he will agree that the original story was Semitic, and not Sumerian. With this understanding of the passage in question, it becomes clear how the word ’epes, meaning “end,” became identified with the sea, which from year to year sent forth more ^epes; and what is here more important, how the sea, which contained the ^epes, came to be called apsu.^^ In understanding that these two words are related, we should attempt to account for the final long vowel. There seem to be three possible explanations. One is, that probably apsH means ‘belonging to the 'epes,” referring to the water which surrounds it, and with which it was so closely identified. The second is, that it is dual; certainly this is implied here as well as elsewhere. And the third is, that it is plural, like the word in the common poetic phrase of the Old Testament, meaning ‘*ends of the earth.” Exactly the reverse was advanced by Hommel, as quoted by Zimmern KAD p. 492 note 1. III. THE CREATION STORY. 87 We have seen above that apsu in the Enuma elish does not mean ^Hhe deep/^ nor is it connected with that idea. It, therefore, cannot be used to show that in the Babylonian story ^‘the watery chaos’’ was the first creator. Moreover, taking everything into consideration, it must be apparent that apsu in this poem originally personified the end of the earth, around which the ^^dry ground” was formed; while Tiamat personified the water.” We now come to Tiamat, the consort of Apsu, who was slain by the god Marduk, and out of whose corpse the firmament was created. In Babylonian the word tiamat means “sea, deep, abyss.” It is found written in the following forms: ti-a-am-tu, ti-am-tu, ti-amat, tani-tu, tam-du, ta-ma-tu, ti-d(wa)-am-tu, and ti-d{wa)-md{wa)-ti. In an examination of all the dictionaries and glossaries at hand, from the earliest period to the latest, as well as syllabaries and many texts, I could not find a single example of this very common word meaning “sea” that represents the h (as is usually done by what is called the ^Treathing”) which all scholars admit it originally contained.^® The many variant forms of the word clearly indicate that it is foreign. This is especially shown by the last two examples given above in which wa is used instead of a and Certainly this comparatively rare usage of the sign by the two scribes indicates that they appreciated that the word contained a weak consonant; but they did not know which. The scribe of the last example even represented the h in the word which followed. Yet the word tiamat, for which there is no root in Babylonian, scholars have declared is the origin of the Hebrew tehom. 3® I have no doubt that such an example will turn up if scholars are right as regards the root of tehom. ^®The former occurs in a building inscription of Nabopolassar OBI 84, 11:50; and the latter is found in the Creation Story 11:81 {CT 13, 6:13). 88 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. In the Old Testament the very common word thom^ which means the same as tidmat, was also used for the ^^subterranean waters’^ and the primaeval waters before the creation. Tehom, who personi¬ fied the deep, was a swift serpent and a monster of the waters. We not only have the root of the word in general usage in Hebrew, but we have several allied roots, as well as derivatives. We have hunij hamam and hamah. These roots being so closely related, scholars are not agreed from which one Tehom is derived. This word is generally regarded as having been borrowed from the Babylonian tidmat] or, as a follower of the Babylonists, in writing on the second verse of Genesis, puts it: ^^Unquestionably, too, the word [fhom] is derived from the Babylonian Tidmat. And its early use in Hebrew attests early Israelite acquaintance with the Babylonian Enuma elish epic, or at least with the Babylonian creation myth in some form or other. Without taking into consideration the discussion which follows, it has appeared for years almost incredible that Assyriologists could make themselves believe that this corrupted word, which from the earliest times had lost the consonant hy and for which there is no etymology in Babylonian, could be the origin of the Hebrew fhom and the Arabic tihdmat. Let us now inquire what other light Babylonian literature and art throw on the subject before us. There is an inscription called the Cuthean Legend in which an early Babylonian king recounts how he was delivered from hordes of people who had the bodies of birds of the hollow, men who had the faces of ravens,whom Tiamat had suckled, and who ^Tn the midst of the mountain became strong,etc. The king mustered great forces and eventually, after three years^ fighting, triumphed over this foreign power which had humiliated his land. The tablet commemorating the deliverance was deposited as a memorial in " Morgenstern, Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang. XXXVI p. 197. III. THE CREATION STORY. 89 the temple at Cutha. Tiamat, it would seem, was here, as in Enuma elish, the mother-goddess of that people. They lived in a moun¬ tain. It should be added that there is nothing in the legend that connects her or anything else with the sea.^^ Besides this legend there are several references to Tiamat in frag¬ ments of tablets which are either not understood or throw little or no light upon the subject. In one, which is probably astrological, ^‘tiamat the upper,’^ and ^Hidmat the lower,’’ refer to the upper and lower sea. In another, the breadth of ^f[dma^],” which, if correctly restored, has a significance that is not understood. While references to Tiamat in the literature are exceedingly hmited, there are two other legends known which refer to male monsters, who s 3 mibolize foreign powers. In the Library of Ashur- banipal, an inscription was preserved which records a fight between Tishpak, a god, and a huge serpent {siru) of the river, who was called Labbu, which means “lion,” probably “sea lion.” This also did not occur prior to the creation, but after “the cities had sighed” because of some oppression. Unquestionably Labbu, who happens to be a male, not a female monster, symbolically repre¬ sents some unfriendly sea-bordering nation. A portion of another dragon myth was recently found at Ashur, and published by Ebeling.^^ Unfortunately the text is very frag¬ mentary, but there is enough preserved of it to show that the huge monster had legs, and devoured fish, birds, and beasts, as well as “the black headed people.” This is also a male monster of the deep, and is called dru “serpent.” He unquestionably also repre¬ sents the national ensign of some foreign nation. Let us here inquire how Tiamat is described in the Enuma elish. In her equipment for the fight, in addition to making weapons invincible, she bore monster serpents, vipers, dragons, hurricanes, " See King, Seven Tablets of Creation I pp. 140 ff. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung (1916) 106 f. 90 THE ORIGIN OP BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. hounds, fish-men, scorpion-men, tempests, etc. In the entire list of eleven aids, only fish-men’^ are referred to, if that is the correct translation of the word, to show that she had anything to do with water. Moreover, there is nothing in the entire poem to connect Tiamat with the sea, except her name, which, as we have seen, is the same as tiamat oceanor to show that she personified the watery chaos.^^^^ The comparison of this fact with the statements of Babylonists is quite illuminating and interesting. In Babylonian art, we have the following to consider in this connection. The serpent was introduced in the art in an early period. It was the symbol of an invader who ruled the country, whose name has come down to us in a Sumerian form, Nin-Gish- Zidda. Ushum-Gal “the great serpentis frequently mentioned in connection with Tammuz, his son; and was used symbolically there¬ after in Babylonia. Since these were foreign rulers, it becomes clear as to how this symbol was introduced in the land. It is not im¬ probable that the country whence they came, was in the Lebanon region, for Tammuz is said to have been born among the cedars.^® At present there is no way of connecting Tiamat with these emblems. Of course, it is well known that the worship of the serpent or dragon prevailed also in Elam, Egypt, Phoenicia, Hatti, Persia, India, China, Greece, and other lands. On a large slab found in the palace of Ashurnasirpal at Nimroud, the fight between the storm-god and a winged monster is depicted. This, however, is also a male monster. Sennacherib, in a building inscription, tells of his having a great bronze door made on which Deimel has recently propounded a brand-new theory as follows: Tiamat typifies Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, who reigned as far as the sea (tidmat). Kingu is Ki-en-gif the name of Sumer, which in the epic is personified in derision. The victory of Marduk over Tiamat and Kingu typifies the conquest of Hammurabi over Larsa and Sumer. (See Orientalia 4, 44 f.) See A Hebrew Delitge Story p. 46. The fact that his name is written with two Sumerian ideograms Dumu-zi is no proof that Tammuz was a Sumerian. III. THE CREATION STORY. 91 he had portrayed scenes depicting the fight with Tiamat, not by Marduk, but by his own deity, Ashur. There are also a number of seals with scenes of a fight between a deity and a dragon, as well as seals depicting fights with lions and other beasts. In many instances such objects reflect the religious ideas of the people, in distinction from the recognized theological ideas of organized society. Let us here inquire whether any references in the cuneiform liter¬ ature, besides the Enuma elish, can be cited to show that the Babylonians had such a doctrine as the emanation of all things from ^^a watery chaos,or moisture,^’ which it is claimed was borrowed from Babylonia. In the Bilingual Babylonian Story of Creation, bearing especially on the building of the temple in Eridu, already mentioned, in which after referring to the time before reeds sprouted, trees grew, bricks had been made, or Nippur, Uruk, and apsu had been made, the writer says: All lands were sea. Then, what was in the midst of the sea was pressed out. Marduk bound reeds upon the face of the water; He created ground, and poured (it) with the reeds. In this cosmological conception, as Professor Jastrow has cor¬ rectly pointed out, ^Hhere is no assumption of a chaotic condition at the beginning of time with the watery element in control.^^^® The myth assumes the earth to be in existence, but covered with water. There was, however, no life in it. Professor King also called attention to the fact that in this myth ^‘it is important to note that the primaeval water is not personified.’’^^ The conception that this naive writer gives us of the creation is that the gods made the ^^dry land” appear in much the same way Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang. XXXVI 244 ff. Schweich Lectures 1916 p. 124. 92 THE OKIGIN OF BIBLICAL TEADITIONS. as many of the early cultivators of the land did in order to create fields. This, as already stated above, is a local nature-myth which had its origin in Eridu, and reflects the time when Amorites moved into the uninhabited alluvium. This is the nearest approach to the Amorite cosmology that I know of in the Babylonian literature. In other stories of creation handed down in Sumerian, there is not a semblance of the idea that things emanated from water or a watery chaos. In view, therefore, of all the assertions made by Babylonists on the subject, and also Sumerists, this conclusion must be conceded as most surprising. In the Old Testament, as we have seen, there are many references to the conflict between Yahweh and Rahab or Leviathan the dragon, who personified the deep, Tehom. There are so many references to this conflict and the primaeval state, and so many poetical allusions to the dragon, symbolizing the deep, chaos, destruction, and death, that one is led to feel that the conception belonged to the very bone and marrow of the religious and philosophic thought of the people. Even in the New Testament we learn that 'Hhe earth was compacted out of water by the word of God’’ (II Peter, 3:5). We have also seen how in the Phoenician cosmogony all the seeds of creation sprang from the watery chaos; which thought is also paralleled in Homer, who tells us that Okeanos was the source of all things, including the gods. This thought, moreover, was also very widely diffused. The watery origin of created things was known to the Vedic Aryans even the North American Indians had this doctrine. With all the light, therefore, that is now available from the cuneiform literature we learn on the one hand that, with the excep¬ tion of the Enuma elishy but one legend mentions Tiamat, who in it is not a goddess of the deep, but the mother-goddess of a moun- See Hopkins, Religions of India p. 48. III. THE CREATION STORY. 93 tainous land which had humiliated Babylonia; and on the other hand, the thought that all things emanated from water is wholly wanting in the literature of the Babylonians. Where then, we ask, are the data to show that ^Hhe elements indeed of the Biblical cosmology are all Babylonian’’? Where then is the proof that attests early Israelite acquaintance with the Babylonian Enuma elish,’’ even if we assume that this epic is Babylonian? Where is the basis for the assertion that the doctrine of the emanation of all things from water is based on it, or, in fact, on anything Babylonian? If a more ancient recension of this poem is found, it may contain this idea; for I believe the Amorites brought it into the country; but even then it would have to be admitted that the elimination of the idea in later times proves that the thought was not Babylonian. How will the advocates of the theory explain the omission of the very idea in the literature of the Baby¬ lonians that they say the Hebrews borrowed, and with which their own literature was so thoroughly permeated? It seems to me there can be no other conclusion but that at some early time this idea migrated with the myth to Babylonia with Amorites, where it took on a local coloring at Eridu, and was modi¬ fied at Babylon, and later at Ashur, during which process the Amo- rite idea, that all things emanated from water, was lost sight of. We now come to the name and word Mummu. In the fourth line of the poem, the word is used as a prefix to Tiamat, but in the lines which follow, Mummu is the name of the minister of Apsu. Damascius, who obtained his data from the writings of Berossus, tells us that Mummu was an offspring of Apsu and Tiamat. The explanation of this word has given rise to an extensive liter¬ ature. Smith originally translated it ^The chaos of water. Zimmern translates it ^‘Urgrund”; Delitzsch, Noise, the tumult of the Urwasser”; Prince and Haupt, ^^unfathomable depths,” ** Chaldean Account of Genesis p. 65. 94 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. (from a reduplication of mu)] Jensen, ‘^Urform^^; Dhorme, ^ ‘ tumultueuse ’ ^; Barton, ^ ^ roaring ”; Deimel, ^ ^ gebarerin ’ ’ (from a reduplication of mu{d)^^ Professor Jastrow held that Mummu, is the offspring of Apsu, the watery expanse, and Tiamat, through the commingling of their waters, and is a term signifying water. The word cannot be explained et 3 unologically as coming from any root in use in Babylonian. The meaning noise, roaring,^^ which unquestionably is correct, is based upon the well-known Hebrew root hum. Although there are a few occurrences of the Hebrew word in cuneiform, the root is not in use in Babylonian. It is to be noted that in the story the word or name, aside from its occurrence as a prefix to Tiamat, is not used in any way as connected with water; in fact httle light is thrown upon Mummu except that he concurred in the plot of Apsu; and then, because he became violent, after his master had been slain, Ea killed him. In the Old Testament, m^humahj with which Smith correctly connected the word, means “tumult, confusion, disquietude,^^ from the root hum “to murmur, roar, discomfit.’^ This understanding of the word throws Hght upon its use as a title or prefix to the name Tiamat in the fourth line of the poem. In view of the fact that Tiamat originally personified “the deep,’^ the meaning “turbulent’’ would be most appropriate; although, as stated above, the thought implying this, as characteristic of the deity, had been practically ehminated from the myth as the Babylonians have handed it down. In this connection let us briefly discuss another title of Tiamat, namely TJmmu khubuTy the one “who formed all things.” In fine 4, as we have seen, another epithet of the goddess reads, “the bearer of all of them.” See Muss-Arnolt, Assyrian Dictionary pp. 552 f. Deimel makes Mummu the original mother-goddess (see Orientalia 4, p. 44). Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions p. 73. III. THE CREATION STORY. 95 Professor Zimmern translated khuhur ^^deep/^ and Pere Dhorme, ^‘totalit^/^ the former being based on the idea that Tiamat was a goddess of the deep, and the latter on the idea that she was ^^the bearer of all of them’’; but there is no root for either idea in Baby¬ lonian. All other scholars had left the word untranslated. The word khuhur also occurs in the so-called Ea and Atra-khasis Epic, where with the exception of the meaning “totality,” offered by one scholar, it has been left untranslated by all others. In a recent study of the legend, I found that the word was glossed by pukhru assembly.” In view of the fact that the context required such a meaning; that in Plebrew and Aramaic the root khahar means ^Ho join, associate”; and because there are derivatives like kheher company,” khdher “associate,” etc., it followed that khuhur was unquestionably an Amorite word, having the same meaning as the Babylonian pukhru “assembly.” As in Greek mythology, the council or assembly of the gods is here referred to; the idea figures very prominently in these myths. This being the proper explanation of the word, and since Tiamat was the “bearer of all of them,” and the one “who formed all things,” I have proposed that the title Ummu khuhur means “mother of the assembly,” and that it was unquestionably Amorite.^* It is somewhat fortunate that the word had been left untrans¬ lated by all except in the instances referred to, for if it had been construed as belonging to the root mentioned, it doubtless would have been listed as a Babylonian word which the Aramaeans and Hebrews had borrowed from the Babylonians. If my explanation of this word is accepted, it naturally follows that it has an impor¬ tance of a far-reaching character. It is therefore not at all surprising to find that three attempts have already been made in reviews which have appeared to explain khuhur otherwise, and thus avoid admitting that it is Amorite. In A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform p. 18. 96 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. opposition to my explanation Doctor Thompson of Oxford, trans¬ lates the word crowd, noise(?),^^ but offers no etymology.®^ For the meaning ^^noise(?)’^ there is none; and if ^^crowdis correct, it can only be from the same Amorite root which I have proposed. I see, therefore, no reason whatever for accepting this guess. The second is that of Luckenbill, who, without a semblance of etymo¬ logical support, translates khuhuri numbers.’^ This need not detain us.®^ Professor Sayce sees in the word khuhur the name of “the river of death,which the dead had to cross, and which was located in the north.®® “Mother of the river of deathhardly seems appro¬ priate; but upon what is this meaning based? Khubur, as is well known, is the name of an important tributary or “companion’^ river of the Euphrates in Mesopotamia. In two texts, Khuburru is the name of a country in north Mesopotamia, called also Subartu.®^ In a religious text, the words urukh me-lte] occurs in one line, and in the following is mentioned the river Khubur.®® If the restoration is correct, the two words mean “road of death.These passages are brought together and the idea formulated that khuhur is the name of the river of death which the dead had to cross, and which is located in the north.®® If the thought of a “river of deathfigures in the Babylonian religion, it depends, as far as I know, upon the above obscure and reconstructed passage. I only desire to add that I c^n see no The London Times Literary Supplement, Oct. 12, 1922, p. 646. ®5See AJSL, 39, 154. Line 4 of the ancient famine story he translates: ^‘the god became disturbed by their (the people^s) numbers (size).’’ Line 8: ^Tecause of their numbers, I(?) will proclaim a dispersion(?).” These translations sound as if Luckenbill confused the Biblical stories of the creation, deluge, and the tower of Babel. Expository Times, 1922, Nov. p. 76. See Rawlinson WAI, II, 50:51, and V, 16:19. Craig, Religious Texts I, p. 44. See Jensen, Mythen und Epen 307 ff. ITT. THE CREATION STORY. 97 reason for accepting this idea in connection with khubur in the texts under consideration, where a meaning like assembly fits the context perfectly; nor in the title mother khubur the epithet of the goddess in the myth, who is credited with being a parent of all the gods. In other words, I see no reason for setting aside my own explanation of the word, and for giving up my firm convic¬ tion that it is Amorite. Before we proceed to consider the names of other deities found in this poem, let me ask for a decision on the question as to whether the words Apsu, Tiamat, Mummu, and khubur are Babylonian or Amorite. For these four words used as names and titles, as we have seen, on the one hand, there are no roots in Babylonian, nor are there derivatives from the roots, ^. 6 ., it is not possible to explain them etymologically on the basis of known roots in that language. On the other hand, in Hebrew we have not only the corresponding words in use, but in every instance verbal forms from the roots to which they belong, as well as other derivatives. Under these circumstances, let me ask, how can anyone make himself believe that they are of Babylonian origin? It seems to me that it would be about as easy to believe that the word “ Ocean was originally English, from which language it was borrowed by the Greeks, when it became Okeanos. Lakhmu and Lakhamu in the poem are the parents of the inde- scribable Anshar, whom they had endowed with an equality of deity, and also the ancestors of Anu and Ea. When Tiamat had planned revenge for the death of Apsu, Anshar sent his messenger to inform his parents and to invite them and all the gods to an assembly and feast. It is impossible to conclude otherwise than that these parents occupied a unique position in the poem, as it was originally handed down. What role did they play in the Babylonian pantheon? In Babylonian literature, Lakhmu and Lakhamu are never men¬ tioned as the ancestors of Anu or Ea; in fact they are unknown in 98 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. the Babylonian pantheon. In the five large collections of names, we do not find a single instance in which these deities appear. This absence in the nomenclature of the country, where the poem is supposed to be indigenous, is most significant. In Assyria, the pair is mentioned in several different versions of a list of gods. Naturally the appropriation of the poem to magnify Anshar, the deity of the land, would account for this; but these deities also played no role in the Assyrian pantheon; and they are not found in the nomenclature of the land. Moreover, the attempt to replace Lakhmu, the father of Anshar, with the name of Ea, in lines 78 and 89 of Tablet I, confirms the idea that the deity is foreign. Among the monsters in the poem, created by Tiamat to assist her in her fight, is the goddess Lakhamu (1:134). In a building inscription of an early king of Babylonia, Agum-kakrime, who ruled in the seventeenth century B. C., in describing his adorning the shrines at Babylon, tells us that he had his workmen carve figures of the monsters, over whom Marduk triumphed; among which, as in the myth, he included Lakhamu. Will the Baby- lonists, who hold that this poem originated in Babylonia, explain these facts, including, of course, the fact that this pair are the ancestors of Anu and Ea? Unquestionably, Lakhmu and Lakhamu were foreign deities. The names of these deities, it would seem, were a part of the narrative as it reached Babylonia, but they doubtless belonged to the West. The identification of Lakhmu with Beth-Lekhem (Beth¬ lehem) , the name of two cities or shrines in Palestine, has frequently been suggested. It is at least the only plausible identification that has thus far been made. It has been suggested that the names of the pair which Lakhmu and Lakhamu created, namely Anshar and Kishar, arose through an effort made by Assyrian scholars to include their god Ashur III. THE CREATION STORY. 99 among those of the poem. Kishar is generally thought to be a pure abstraction of the late time. Moreover, both deities seem superfluous. Anshar, it seems to me, has usurped the place of El or Ilu. In the edict of the gods, when Marduk was made preeminent, they said, ^Hhy word is Anu (originally El).^^ When Ea exalted him, ^‘he endowed him with an equality of El.’’ These and other passages make it reasonable to suppose that the Marduk schoolmen, who rewrote the epic, belittled El, as they also did Ea, in their efforts to magnify their own deity. The Ashur priests apparently did the same thing by introducing Anshar, and using for him the description of El or Anu. In reading the magniloquent description of Anshar ^^who was clothed with the majesty of ten gods” (see Appendix A, I, 83-102), one cannot help feeling that this originally belonged to the all- important god Ilu or El, whose name was later S 3 aicretized with, or written Anu. Confirmation of the conjecture is to be found in connection with the number of eyes he is said to have had (see 95 ff); for we learn in the cosmogony of Sanchuniathon, the god Taautus ‘‘contrived also for Kronus (or El) the ensign of his royal power, having four eyes, in the parts before and in the parts behind, two of them closing as in sleep.” In the sixth tablet Anu, or El, appears as the all-supreme deity. It would seem that the Ashur priests had not completed their task of editing the text in the interests of their deity. We now come to the fourth group of gods in the creation story, Anu (or El), Ea, and Marduk. It is said in the epic that Anu begat Ea. Although the text is incomplete at this point, we know from other sources that Ea begat Marduk. The chief deities of the early deluge story included Ilu, Ea and Adad; and it seems to me that the same was true of this story prior to its revision by the priests of Marduk. This is also the triad of the Name Syllabary, 100 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. published by Chiera, which was written at Nippur in the third millennium B. C., but which obviously is of even greater antiquity. El, we know from the nomenclature, was an Amorite deity of the earliest period. El and Hadad (Adad) were two of the im¬ portant deities in Syria as late as the first millennium B. C. Accord¬ ing to the Phoenician mythology of Sanchuniathon, El or Kronos, was the son of Ouranos ^‘heaven,” and Ge earth,” who were the children of Elioun ^^the most high.” El, this mythology tells us, founded Byblos, the first city in Phoenicia, which he gave to the goddess Baaltis; Egypt, he gave to Taautus (Tiamat). El or An was the foremost deity in early Babylonia. It is not impossible that the Sumerians originally had a deity An, meaning ^‘heaven” or ‘^high,” but I doubt it. Like the Greeks who adopted and worshipped Semitic gods under a disguise that was very trans¬ parent, I believe that the Sumerians, after they had come into the country, also adopted the gods of the Semites. There are many reasons for this view.®® The Sumerian An, meaning ^^high” or ^^heaven,” En-Lil “lord of the storm,” En-Ki “lord of the earth,” Nin-Kharsag “lady of the mountain,” Nin-Edinu “lady of the plain,” Nin-Erinu “lady of the cedar,” Nin-Mar^*, “lady of the city Mari,” etc.—these are not names; they are epithets. Names of deities, such as El, Ea, and Adad; Osiris, Isis, and Horus; Zeus, Apollo and Hera; or even Yahweh, as everyone knows, are not so easily explained. I feel that I have satisfactorily shown elsewhere that the wor¬ ship of Anu was brought by the Amorites into the land, very probably from *Ana on the Euphrates.It is possible that the Western Semites originally worshipped two gods, named El and *Ana (or Khana), who in time became syncretized. But probably *Ana was originally an epithet of El. The Babylonian form of the See also Meyer, Sumener und Semiten in Babylonien. The Empire of the Amorites 116 ff; 168; and 178. III. THE CREATION STORY. 101 name, Ann, arose from the use of the Sumerian sign AN to represent the name of the deity. Certainly a more appropriate sign to repre¬ sent the name of ^El ^elydn the ^^most high god^’ of the Semites, namely AN, meaning “high’^ and also “heaven,’^ could not have been selected. That AN could have become Semitized into Anu, is perfectly clear when we know that the epithet of the storm-god, En-Lil ^‘Lord of the storm,^’ became Ellil. Moreover, An, or Anu, was regarded as the same as Ilu, or El. At Erech, the name of the temple of this god, as in the case of all names of temples in Babylonia, was written in Sumerian, E-Anna. This name, I believe, originally meant not “house of heaven,” but “house of El,” ^. e., Beth-El. At Babylon, El is found in the city^s name, Bab-El, “Gate of El.” While in time, Marduk supplanted El, the original patron deity of the city, we find Hammurabi not only crediting “Ilu, king of the Anunnaki,” with having committed the rule of mankind to Marduk, but together with Ellil, as having raised the towers of Babylon. El is also found, as already men¬ tioned, in the name of Der, which was written Dur-El, “Fortress of El.” It is obvious that El was also the foremost deity of this city; and yet it was known as “the city of Anu.”®^ Certainly this fact seems to confirm the idea that Anu arose through the use of the ideogran AN for the name of El. It might be added that the name of the only known king of this city of the early period, is Anu-mutabil. I believe if a version of the Enuma elish is found belonging to the early period, that, like the deluge story, the name of the chief deity will be written Ilu or El, instead of Anu. When the priests of Babylon rewrote the epic, throughout it they ascribed the prerogatives of El to their god Marduk. For example in exalting him, the gods are made to say, “thy word is Anu” (IV:4); but *2 See A Hebrew Deluge Story p. 29. *3 See KeiUnschriftUche Bihliotheh III 1, 165:4. 102 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. in a passage found in the sixth tablet (98), the original name is found, where the gods are made to say: ^^for us, whatever name we mention, he is our I have already given my conception of the god Ea; how, when this '^lord of the land^^ migrated to Eridu, on the sea, he became the god of the deep, where for millenniums his cult developed independently. One of the ideograms which represented the name Ea was En-Ki, which means “lord of the earth.^^ He was also “lord of springs,^' and designated as ^Hhe potter,’’ “the great artificer,” showing his identity with a mountainous land, where metals were found. Another common ideogram, written E-A, meaning “house of water,” was used to represent the name of the god Ea. The latter may be a graphic expedient, on the part of the Sumerian scribes, which probably approximately represented the pronunciation of the god’s name (which is certainly very close to Jah), and at the same time described one of his characteristics, as god of the water, which he especially became at Eridu. Let me repeat here some of the reasons which I have given elsewhere for the statement that Ea is Amorite. In the Name-Syllabary found at Nippur, copied in the third millennium B. C., but doubtless of much greater antiquity, Ea is found in a group which occurs a number of times, as follows: Hu, Ea, and Adad(IM). This, as I believe, was the earliest Semitic triad in Babylonia before Enlil displaced Ea as second in order, and before Hu was Babylonized, by the use of the sign AN, into Anu. It shows also that the explanatory list of gods, which begins with Hu instead of Anu, and is followed by Ea, not Enlil, very probably also goes back to this early period. In the same archive at Nippur, an Amorite Name-Syllabary was discovered, also belonging to the early period; and in it the following groups are found, consisting of: El, Ea, and Nebo; El, III. THE CREATION STORY. 103 Ea, and Ashirta; Dagan, Ea, and Ashirta; also [?], Ea, and Dagan. This Name-Syllabary, which contains only Amorite deities, is a most significant proof that Ea is Amorite. A study of the nomenclature of the Manishtusu obelisk (about 2775 B. C.), reveals many Amorite names compounded with that of this deity. Especially interesting are such groups as Aku-ilum and Aku-Ea; Ikrub-Ilu and Ikrub-Ea; Iti-Ilu, Iti-Ea and Iti- Dagan, etc.®^ The lack of excavations in Amurru is again felt, yet with the help of the Amarna letters we are not without some light on the subject from that quarter. In letters from Mitanni, we find Ea is syncre- tized with Sharru, as Ea-Sharru, in two lists of deities.During the same period this deity was also worshipped in Babylonia, as shown by the personal names.®® At Calah, Ashur-nasir-apal erected a statue to Ea-sharri. Still another reason for regarding Ea as an Amorite deity is to be found in the fact that the god appears in the same position in the triad of the early version of the deluge story, as in the Name-Syllabary, i. c., Ilu, Ea, and Adad. It is held that Marduk usurped the position of Enlil. I do not think the original story mentioned Enlil. A glance at the closing line of the Fourth Tablet makes it very apparent that his name has been forcibly introduced into the poem at that point. In VI: 43 we have the triad Marduk, Enlil, and Ea. A careful study of the story will not fail to reveal the fact that Marduk supplanted El. When the gods desired to honor him, as mentioned above, they commanded: ^^his word is Anu (originally El).’^ While in the Old Testament, Yahweh slew the dragon, there is little difficulty in understanding that El was the name used at an earlier time. A Greek myth seems to add force to this conclusion. See Scheil, Delegation en Perse II, 41 ff. «\See Knudtzon, El-AmarnohTaJeln 24:76, 101. Clay, Personal Names of the Cassite Period p. 148. 104 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. The story of the contest between Kronos (whose other name was El), and Ophioneus (which name means ‘^dragon’’), was handed down by Pherecydes, who, it was understood, did not derive it from Greece or Egypt, but, according to Philo, obtained it from the Phoenicians. Kronos was the leader of one host, and Ophioneus of the other. It reads: ^‘He relates of challenges and combats between them, and that they make a treaty that whichever (side) of them shall fall into Ogenes (for Okeanos oceanshall be conquered, and those, who shall thrust them off and conquer them, shall have heaven.This is obviously another version of the conflict. The name of the messenger Gaga, is also Amorite. We find that Sennacherib, in giving a list of twenty deities which he invoked at the close of a building inscription, mentions such Amorite gods as Khani, Gaga, Sherua, Nikkal, etc., doubtless in the interests of those who had taken part in the work. Gaga was never included in the pantheon of the Babylonians or Ass 3 nrians. The name appears in the Amorite Name-Syllabary; and it is probably found in the name Idin-Kakka, king of Khani (in Amurru). More¬ over, I do not believe that scholars will question the Amorite origin of this deity. In presenting the above facts and theories concerning El, Ea, and Marduk, while I am convinced of their vahdity, I realize that for some time they will doubtless be regarded as mooted, because the conclusions involved are so different from those conrimonly accepted. In view of this fact, and in order to avoid having the issue befogged by criticisms of such points, which are not neces¬ sarily pertinent, and especially since there is more than abundance of proof without them, I am quite willing that the facts and theories above presented as regards El, Ea, and Marduk, as well as concem- From Origen, Contra Celsum vi 42 (Diels, Fragmente der Versokratiker ii, p. 203). III. THE CREATION STORY. 105 ing Anshar and Kishar, be left out of consideration in this connec¬ tion. This, however, does not apply to the primaevals, Apsu, Tiamat, and Mummu, nor to Lakmu, and Lakhamu, as well as to Gaga. The importance of such onomastic studies has already been referred to. There can be httle doubt but that we have here a crucial test of the whole thesis. The occurrence of these foreign deities as the chief actors in this poem, unquestionably shows that the poem is of foreign origin. In discussing under the fourth division of arguments or reasons for the Amorite origin of this story what I regard as literary evidence, I fully appreciate, as already stated, that I am treading, at least in part, on ground that fresh discoveries may modify, but also against which some followers of Babylonism can present a display of philological knowledge, so that the non-Assyriologist may be impressed with its importance. In connection with the deluge story, evidence that is beyond cavil can be presented. In this instance, unfortunately, having only recensions of the poem that belonged to a comparatively late period, after it had been edited several times, we doubtless have little remaining of the original story. Nevertheless, a few words have been preserved for us, and in the very place we should naturally expect to find them, namely in the few lines at the beginning of the poem, bearing on the pri¬ maeval period. The first Amorite word to be noted is ammatum in the second line, which, according to the context, should mean earth, ground, the earth’s surface,” in contrast to ^^the heavens.” All translators, following Smith, have recognized this meaning. The word is otherwise unknown in Babylonian literature. The variant form ah-ha-tu,^^ found in the Ashur version, clearly shows that it is a See Kdlschrifttexte aus Assur^ Religidsen Inhalts 162 : 2. 106 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. foreign word. Probably some day it will be found in a Babylonian explanatory list of foreign or obsolete words. Jensen has correctly compared it with ammoth ^Hhe ground’^ of the threshold, Isa. 6:4.®® It is unquestionably the same word. The question can here be raised, since in the Hebrew story adamah ground’^ as the earth^s surface, takes the place of this word, whether it is not possible to regard admatu as the origin of ammatu. But let it be clearly understood that this is a mere suggestion for consideration. The words Apsu, Mummu, and Tiamat have already been dis¬ cussed. The fourth word is gipara, in line seven. This has been translated ^^Gefilde^^ by Delitzsch; ^^Baume^^ by Jensen; field by King and Barton; ^^soiP’ by Jastrow; ^^Strauchwerk^^ by Ebeling; reeds’^ by Luckenbill; ^^Festland^^ by Ungnad, etc. The context suggests the meaning '^dry ground, earth, land.^^ It seems as if it is an Amorite word, like ipru or the Hebrew "dpdr, ^^dry ground, dirt, earth.^^ As is well known, strong 'ayin is repro¬ duced by g in Babylonian, e.g., rigmu; as well as by g in Greek, e.g.j Gaza. If it should prove correct that gipar is the equivalent of the Hebrew *apar, we would have an example of weak 'ayin being represented by g. Probably the word in early Hebrew was pro¬ nounced also as if it had a strong ^ayin^ for in the Amarna letters, "dpdr is written khaparu; and, moreover, as Professor Torrey has suggested, it may be connected with the Arabic ghahar which has the same meanings, ^^dust, earth, etc.^’ The Hebrew 'dpdr is used in the same sense in the Old Testament. Note the passage in which ^The fruits of the earth of the world are mentioned (Prov. 8:26). It is also found in passages having a cosmological significance: ^^who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and meted out the heavens with a span and comprehended the dirt ('dpdr) of the earth as a measure (Is. 40:12). Jensen, Mythen und Epen p. 302. III. THE CREATION STORY. 107 The sixth word is susd in the same line, which has been translated ^^Rohrdickicht^^ by Jensen; and ^^marshor marshland’^ by all others except Jastrow, who has surmised its meaning, and trans¬ lated it ^Hhe shoot.’’ In Hebrew, we have the word s’sd^ meaning ^Tssue of man” and issue of the earth.” It seems evident that this is the same word that is in the creation story. Note the parallel thought expressed in the following passage: ^^he that created the heavens and stretched them forth; he that spread forth the earth and the things which come out of it (s'^’/d’),” Is. 42:5. These six words, including those of the gods mentioned, are in the first six lines. In the lines which follow, besides the title Ummu-khuhur and the names Lakhmu, Lakhamu, Gaga, etc., discussed above, there seem to be comparatively few distinct in¬ dications of the original source. Moreover, the literary marks indicating the origin of the poem, have, as already stated, nearly all been removed or Babylonized by the different redactors. I feel in this discussion of the Babylonian origin of the Biblical stories of creation, that there is little left to which those who will continue to hold the theory can cling. If they seem to think there is, let us have their evidence; it will be welcome. Beyond the statement that the proof offered in the four groups of evidence is more than sufficient to prove the utter baselessness of the theory, it seems unnecessary to summarize what has been presented in this chapter, as well as what bears on the subject in the one which precedes. IV ADAM, THE GARDEN OF EDEN, AND THE FALL In the past fifty years a number of attempts have been made not only to find Babylonian parallels for the stories of Adam, Eden, and the Fall of Man, but to prove that these stories originated in Babylonian mythology. In 1875, George Smith announced in an English newspaper that he had found what he had regarded for ^Hhe general public the most interesting and the most remarkable cuneiform tablet yet discovered.’’ He said it contained ^Hhe story of man’s original innocence, of his temptation, and fall.”^ Naturally this announce¬ ment was echoed far and wide. However, in a very short time scholars showed that Smith was mistaken in his translation; and his view was abandoned. Not many years later Delitzsch endeavored to locate Eden in Babylonia, where besides the Tigris and Euphrates he identified the Bison as the Pallicopas canal, and the Gihon as the Gukhande (also called Arakhtu).^ This view also has been abandoned. Another effort was also made to locate Eden at Eridu in South¬ ern Babylonia. The Babylonian story of the nature and position of Eden, it was said, is to be found in an incantation text, where: (in) Eridu a dark vine grew; it was made in a glorious place; its appearance (as) lapis-lazuli planted beside the abyss,” etc.* The first man, Adam, we are told, was a Sumerian, who had been created in Eridu (the good city); and here, therefore, the Babylonian Semite placed the home of the first ancestor of his race. This 1 Daily Telegraph (London) March 4, 1875. 2 Delitzsch, Wo Lag das Paradies 1881. * Sayce, Hihbert Lectures on the Religion of the Ancient Babylonians p. 238. ( 108 ) IV. ADAM, THE GARDEN OF EDEN, AND THE FALL. 109 belief, we are further told, the Semite ^‘borrowed along with the other elements of Babylonian culture’’ . . . ^^Like the story of the deluge it was part of the Sumerian heritage into which the Semite had entered.”^ One of the traditions handed down by the Babylonians, referring to Eridu, is known as the Legend of Adapa, which, although it has very slight resemblance to the story of Adam and his fall, it is claimed, was transformed and recast into that story. Others regard this legend as a direct prototype which had certain influences upon the development of the Genesis story. Fragments of this legend which belonged to the Library of Nineveh, are now found in the British Museum and in the Pierpont Morgan Library; the principal portion of it, however, was dis¬ covered among the Amarna archives in Egypt, where it was used as a text-book to study the Babylonian language; this is now in the Berlin Museum. For many years Professor Sayce has held that Adapa was identical with Adam, and that the name Adapa could be read Adam. More recently it was found that the sign pa had the rare value ma, which he felt supported his view that Adapa is to be read Adawa^ and that this is identical with Adam.® Others, however, have since called attention to the fact that this name is frequently written A-da-pa{d), which makes the reading Adamu impossible.® Fol¬ lowing is an outline of the Adapa legend. The god Ea had given great wisdom to a certain sage, named Adapa, who was a priest of Eridu, in order that he might reveal the fate of the land; '^but eternal life he had not given him.” He was a zealous priest of the sanctuary; he baked bread, and pro¬ vided food by fishing in the sea. One day while exercising the < Sayce, Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions p. 91. ‘ Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions p. 91, note 1. «Langdon, Sumerian Epic of Paradise p. 64, note 1. 110 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. latter function of his office, the south-wind capsized his boat, when in revenge he broke its wings so that for seven days it blew not upon the land; whereupon he was summoned to appear in heaven, before Anu. In preparation for his visit to Anu, his god Ea instructed him how to excite the sympathy of the demi-gods he would meet at the portal of heaven. He told him to appear in a mourning garment, and when asked for the reason, to reply that it was because two gods had disappeared from the land. And on being asked who these gods were, to say that they were Tammuz and Gish-Zidda. These, being the same with whom he would be speaking, would look in amazement at one another; and then they would intercede before Anu in his behalf. Ea further instructed Adapa: When thou comest into the presence of Anu, they will offer thee food of death; do not eat it. They will offer thee water of death; do not drink it. They will offer thee a dress; put it on. They will offer thee oil, anoint thyself with it. The advice that I give thee, do not neglect; The word that I tell thee, observe. Adapa made his appearance in heaven as instructed. Every¬ thing happened as foretold. Anu^s anger was appeased, and he ordered that they Bring him food of life that he may eat. Food of life they brought him; he did not eat; Water of life they brought him; he did not drink. A dress they brought him; he put it on. Oil They brought him; he anointed himself. When Anu saw this he was amazed (and said): Now Adapa, why didst thou not eat? Why didst thou not drink? Now wilt thou not remain alive. (He replied) Ea my lord Said: Thou shalt not eat, thou shalt not drink. (Anu said) Take him and bring him back to earth. IV. ADAM, THE GARDEN OF EDEN, AND THE FALL. Ill The balance of the legend is poorly preserved, and not very well understood. Some lines are suggestive of its having been used, like so many of the legends, for incantation purposes: And what evil he imposed upon the people, [And] the disease which in the body of men he imposed. That will the goddess Ninkarrak allay. Let illness depart; let sickness turn aside. [Upon] that [man] let his terror fall; .he shall not rest in good sleep. The significance of these lines is not understood. The balance of the text is missing. Certain scholars have made extensive comparisons between Genesis and this legend.^ It seems to me that there is but one clear thought that this legend has in common with the Old Testament, and that is that the gift of Jinmprtality was connected with the eating of the food of hfe; although even this thought is not parallel, for Adam through disobedience ate of the food in order to become hke God, and Adapa through obedience to his deity’s counsel, refused it. Perhaps the lone thought that Genesis and the Adapa legend have in common is that man forfeited immortality by his own act. As is well known, many ancient legends have already been recovered concerning men seeking immortality.^ Naturally it is reasonable to believe that this thought was uppermost in the mind of man in ancient times, as it is at present. It is interesting, however, to note that Sir James G. Frazer was not sufficiently impressed by this contention even to mention the Legend of Adapa as a parallel to the story of the fall, in his Folk¬ lore in the Old Testament. He records some stories where men missed the gift of immortality because of disobedience or accidents, ’ See for example, Barton, Archaeology and the Bible 260 ff. • Frazer, Belief in Immortality I, 59 ff. 112 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. and that serpents and other animals had obtained it, for whose subtlety they were hated; but the Adapa Legend is not even re¬ ferred to. Among others he includes the Gilgamesh story of how the existence of the magic plant of immortality was revealed; and how the serpent had stolen it while he was bathing. Another immortality story is to be seen in the Etana Legend.® Doubtless many others will be found as investigations proceed. Adapa was a priest of Eridu, and ^‘a sage among men.^^ The reference in the legend to the two kings who had disappeared and had become demi-gods, would show that he lived at a time subse¬ quent to them. According to the recently discovered dynastic lists they ruled about 4200 B. C. There is no indication in the poem that it belongs to the beginning of man’s history—in fact, every¬ thing in it points to an advanced state of civilization. In this connection I cannot agree, therefore, with those who, believing that Adapa was the ancestor of the human race, do not think ^Tt wise to test mythological and poetic statements by the strictures of logic.Moreover, if in the light of facts contained in this discussion, especially concerning the migration of religious ideas, there are those who can still satisfy themselves that this legend has furnished the idea for the writer of the Old Testament story of Adam and the fall, nothing that I can add will cause them to change their views. A few years ago Professor Langdon of Oxford published a f Sumerian tablet which was announced as containing the origin of the Hebrew story of Paradise, and as showing that the geographical description of the Genesis story was obviously derived from Sumero-babylonian cosmology.” In the same tablet he also found the origin of the story of the Fall of Man, which he said “is a> masterly combination of the Eridu doctrine known to us in See A Hebrew Deluge Story 34 f. Langdon, Sumerian Epic of Paradise p. 40, note 3. y.. — — r IV. ADAM, THE GARDEN OF EDEN, AND THE FALL. 113 the Semitic legend of Adapa, and the doctrine of our Nippur tablet. It was held that the tablet also contained the story of the flood. A verdict was promptly given on these conclusions by a number of scholars, which was that the proper interpretation of the text excluded the suggested Biblical parallels.^^ is now generally thought that the tablet is a mythical account of the origin of a city, and the beginnings of agriculture/ Still more recently a nothe r announcement has been made of / what is claimed to be the discovery of ^^the clearest and most complete account of the Sumerian story of the Fall of Man, as known to the priestly writers of Nippur.Like the statements of George Smith and others, this has been echoed and re-echoed everywhere in the daily press. I regret to say that I cannot follow the writer; I do not believe that the text has any bearing whatsoever upon the story of the Garden of Eden or the Fall of Man. The contentions of Professor Chiera rest largely on the meanings of several words, which he holds show the mythological character of the tablet, and which make his Biblical parallel possible. Chief among these are kin-guhy which he translates “garden’^ or ^Tand,’^ and two new words which he regards as representing ^Two legendary trees of the garden,’^ namely, gish-gi-tug-gij which he translates ^‘tree which establishes (the use) of clothing,’^ seeing in the word that which ^‘brings into more prominent light the story of the fig tree out of the leaves of which the first wearing apparel was made’^; “ Langdon, Sumerian Epic of Paradise^ the Flood, and the Fall of Man. See also Proc. Soc. Bib. Arch. 36, 188 ff and 253 ff., Jour. Amer. Or. Soc. 36, 140 ff., and Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang. 33, 245 ff. 12 See Sayce, Expository Times 1915 88 ff., Jastrow, Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang. 33, 91 ff.. Jour. Amer. Or. Soc. 36, 122 ff., and 274 £f., Barton, Amer. Jour. Theol. 1917, 671 ff., and Archaeology and the Bible 282 ff.. Prince, Jour. Amer. Or. Soc. 36, 90 ff., Witzel, Keilinschriftliche Studien I 51 ff., Albright, Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang. 35,161 ff., Mercer, Jour. Soc. Bibl. Res. 1818, 51 ff.. King, Schweich Lectures 1918, p. 126. ” Chiera, Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang. 39, 40 ff. 114 THE OKIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. and gi-ush-du, which he translates, ‘‘the reed which frees from death,which he holds is “a very good name for the tree of life.^’ The last two mentioned Sumerian words, in the absence of an explanatory list or a context which throws light on their meaning, can be translated in many different ways, since they are both composed of three separate signs or words which have many different meanings.It is possible to select from the more than one hundred values of these signs, without these helps, such combinations having meanings that would fit into almost any explanation, even to making the one group mean “tree of life.’^ Some day an explan¬ atory list will probably be found, when the exact meaning of these words will become known. The Sumerian word kin-guby as proposed, probably means “garden’’; but the context shows it was a vegetable garden, and not as Chiera proposes, “the garden harboring the tree of life.” The legend, even on the basis of his own translation, it seems to me, refers to “sons of menials” being sent away from the estate, probably for stealing; who shall not return to lead the ox, to irrigate and till the field, and to cultivate the garden. Others shall do this; and their parents shall eat of the food. Then follows what appears to be the citing of a penalty of “ten measures of barley,” apparently referring to the overt act of the “sons of the menials.” This is what has been declared to be “the clearest and most complete account of the Sumerian story of the Fall of Man.” It Let us look at the second, namely, the word gi-ush-du, which Chiera trans¬ lates “the reed which frees from death,” which he says is a “very good name for the tree of life.” It is composed of three signs or words. The first can be read gi “reed, land,” etc., gin “establish, oppress.” etc. The second sign can be read iish “blood, death,” etc., til “live, complete,” etc., bad “remove, open,” as well as many other values. The third sign of this group can be read dii “break, cook, open,” etc., gab “cut through,” tukh “open,” etc. All three signs or words have many values and meanings, leaving it absolutely impossible to know what the group does mean until it is found in an explanatory list, or in an inscription where the reading becomes clear from the context. IV. ADAM, THE GARDEN OF EDEN, AND THE FALL. 115 is from this ^^myth” and the Bibhcal account, we are told, that we gather the idea that the god never intended man to be immortal.’’ It is not impossible that parallels of the Biblical story of Eden and the Fall of Man will be found, for if the Amorites brought other legends to Babylonia, it is reasonable to suppose that they may have also brought these. It seems to me, however, that the search will have to be continued among the Babylonian and Sumerian \ legends, not only for the origin of these stories, but even for parallels.^ In the light of the excavations conducted in Babylonia, and our present knowledge of its physical geography, it is absolutely clear that civilization could not have had its origin in the lower Tigro- Euphrates valley or delta. We know that it required engineering works on a very large scale before it was possible to make the country habitable;^® and this involved extensive cooperation and a willingness on the part of many people to be amenable to regula¬ tions. Great embankments had to be constructed, to keep the rivers within reasonable channels in flood season; and great basins had to be provided, to retain water so that when the floods receded, it could be used for irrigation purposes. Prior to his entrance into the alluvium, man lived further up the rivers, where apparently his engineering science had developed. Eridu by the sea, it seems, was the first permanent habitation, because it was possible for man to live there with the least amount of effort owing to the fact that the inundating waters could readily escape into the gulf. Above Hit, where the alluvium begins, there are natural agri¬ cultural districts close to the rivers, extending over a wide area. Sir William Willcocks was so very much impressed with the agricultural possibilities of this part of Western Asia, that he has proposed to locate the Garden of Eden in this region. Five or six thousand years ago, he tells us, before ^‘ihe degradation of the See Sayce, Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions p. 76; Willcocks, The Near East, September 29, 1916, p. 521; Clay, Jour. Amer. Or. Soc. 41, 261 ff. etc. 116 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. cataracts/’ there was a free flow of water in this district for irriga¬ tion purposes. It appears to me that the theory of Willcocks, who is so well acquainted with this part of the Near East, having studied it topographically and otherwise as an engineer, is very important in this connection, in showing, at least, that this country was probably occupied earlier than the alluvial plain. It was in this part of Amurru that the very ancient kingdom Mari existed, which had not only ruled Babylonia in the fourth millennium B. C., but furnished that land with its gods. Here was found the kingdom 'Ana, also written Khana, which furnished Babylonia with its god Ana, and Palestine and Egypt with his consort Anat. It was from this land that the Semite moved into the alluvium when it was ready to receive man. We are informed by Egyptian archaeologists that the alluvium of the Nile valley was formed only about six to eight thousand B. C., and that prior to this time, prehistoric man lived in the terraces along the river. From the light thrown upon the subject by excavations, this probably is about the time the alluvial plain of Babylonia was first occupied. It would be difficult to under¬ stand, therefore, how any intelligent resident of Western Asia could accept the idea that man first lived in this alluvium. With the evidence everywhere in sight of his colossal doings, in his efforts to harness the two rivers, it is inconceivable that the ancient could satisfy himself that this had been Paradise, and that primaeval man lived there. It is difficult to conceive how even an intelligent Babylonian could have come to such a belief. Moreover, the de¬ scription of Eden in Genesis precludes the possibility of its being in the alluvial plain; as does also the description by the prophets Ezekiel and Amos.^^ Certainly the Amorites or Hebrews never thought of placing the Garden of Eden in 'Hhe plain of Shinar.” From the Garden of Eden to the Crossing of the Jordan 3 ff. See Ezekiel 27:23; 28:13; and Amos 1:5. V THE HEBREW SABBATH For years it was held that the Hebrew Sabbath was borrowed from Babylonia: that it had its roots in the Babylonian shapattu, or shahattUj^ to which we have been told we owe the blessings of that day; for ^Hhe Sabbath-rest was essentially of Babylonian origin.’’2 jg j^eld that ^Hhe word Sabbath is Babylonian indeed.’’3 This view has been accepted by many scholars. It is only necessary to examine the Biblical dictionaries, commentaries, and other helps, to ascertain how deeply rooted this idea is at the present time. Let us here inquire upon what basis does the asser¬ tion rest that the Hebrew Sabbath is of Babylonian origin. In the first place there was found in a Babylonian dictionary, or explanatory list of rare words, this formula: um nukh libhi = sha-pat-tum (or sha-hat-tum) This was translated ^^shabattu was the day of rest of the heart,’^ literally “a day of rest.^^ The word shahatu was also found in an explanatory list of rare words, but the meaning given for it, namely, gamdru ^Ho be full, com¬ plete’’^ did not seem at the time to be suitable for the assertions that had been made. The word shahattu, for which there is no etymology in Semitic Babylonian, was said to have been derived by the native lexi¬ cographers from the Sumerian sa heart,” and hat cease” or ^ ^ rest ”; ® it was literally translated ‘ ‘ heart rest. ” ^ Delitzsch, Babel and Bible p. 101. 2 Sayce, Religion of Egypt and Babylonia p. 476. 3 Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria p. 226. * Cuneiform Texts 12, 6:24. ® See Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 4, 272. * Sayce, Religion of the Babylonians p. 272. (117) 118 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. The second discovery upon which the theory is based, is an inscription giving a calendar of the festivals of the intercalary month Second Elul, in which the duties of the shepherd, or king, are prescribed for the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th, as well as the 19th days of the month. It reads: ^‘The seventh day is the feast of Marduk and Zarpanit. It is an evil day. The shepherd of great peoples shall not eat flesh cooked over coals of an oven; he shall not change the garments of his body; he shall not put on clean clothes; a sacrifice he shall not offer; the king shall not ride in his chariot; he shall not speak as a king; the diviner shall not give a decision in the secret place; the physician shall not touch a sick man; it is not suitable to pronounce a curse; at night the king shall bring his offerings before Marduk and Ishtar; he shall offer a sacrifice; the lifting up of his hands is pleasing to the god.^^^ Whether these requirements were to be observed only during the Second Elul, the extra month inserted in the calendar every two or three years, cannot be determined. Although the tablet was found in the Nineveh Library, it doubtless refers to observance by the king at Babylon, as shown by the names of the deities. These days have been regarded as the origin of the Hebrew Sabbath. Although the words shapattu, and shahatUj are not used in con¬ nection with these days, it was assumed that they were thus called; and although in the hemerology they were designated as “evil days,’’ nevertheless scholars decided arbitrarily that the words um nukh lihhiy found in the syllabary, referred to them. For years Babylonists based their assertions that the Sabbath was a Baby¬ lonian institution on these two points. Somewhat later it was shown that the expression nukh lihhi, which occurs frequently in the lamentation hymns, did not mean “rest of the heart,” but referred to the pacification of the gods; ’ Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia IV, 32:28ff. V. THE HEBKEW SABBATH. 119 and the expression was then translated ^^day of the appeasement of the heart.’’ In 1904, Doctor Pinches discovered in a tablet giving the desig¬ nation of the days of the month, that the 15th day was called shapatti^ when it became clear that the word shahatu, explained by gamdruy meaning be complete, full,” apparently referred to the full moon in the middle of the month.^ This new light upon the subject required a readjustment of the proof that has been advanced for the Babylonian origin of the Sabbath. However, this was promptly accomplished, and the same conclusion reached, even ^That the word Sabbath is Baby¬ lonian indeed.” In this contention I cannot acquiesce. There is no root in Baby¬ lonian, as already intimated, equivalent to the common Hebrew shdbat ^To cut off, desist, put an end to.” With the knowledge of its extended usage throughout the Old Testament, and knowing how thoroughly the institutions and the life of Israel were bound up with this day, to me it has been inconceivable how Assyriologists could make themselves believe, on the basis of the data given above, that this institution and this word were borrowed from Baby¬ lonia. As the calendar for the intercalary month Elul contained certain requirements of the king on the 7th, etc., days of the month, but not of the common people, an investigation was made by the late Professor Johns to ascertain what the dating of the many contracts would show as regards the observance of these days. It was found that on the days in question, business was carried on as usual, although the 19th day showed a considerable falling ® Proc. Soc. Bihl. Arch. 26, 51 ff. Most of the days are simply numbered. Be¬ sides the 15th day, the 21st is called ihhu “ angerthe 25th arkhu TIL, perhaps meaning “end of month’’; see Jastrow Rel. Bah. und Assyr. II, 510 f. • See also Zimmern, ZDMG 58, 199 £f and 458 ff. 120 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. off, and in the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon and in the seventh century of the Assyrian period, there was also observed a decrease in the number of business transactions dated on these days, which, however, perhaps can now be explained (see below). This falling off of business did not show itself in the tablets of the Cassite period. The temple documents of that era showed the same average of business transacted on these days, as well as on the 19th of the month. An examination of the business archives of the Murashff Sons of Nippur, dated in the reigns of Artaxerxes I and Darius II, that is in the time of Ezra, also do not show any abstention from business on these days; they do, however, show that on them the Jews, who figured so prominently in these documents, are con¬ spicuous for their absence as contracting parties. Probably a reinvestigation of the documents of the First Dynasty, and of the Assyrian period, will reveal a similar West Semitic influence on these days, especially as in both these periods Babylonia and Assyria were well filled with Amorites. Another fact has recently come to light which has an interesting bearing in this connection. The nearest approach to anything resembling the actual observ¬ ance of a day like the Hebrew Sabbath in Babylonia, is to be found in a series of twenty-three tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collec¬ tion, which belonged to the temple archives discovered at Warka, the ancient city of Erech. They are monthly records of sheep delivered for sacrificial and other purposes. These tablets are dated between the fifth year of Cjrrus (534 B. C.), and the sixth of Cambyses (523 B. C.). The number of sheep that were delivered is specified for each day of the month; for example, five or more sheep were set apart for the stable,’’ and four or more for the shepherd of sacrifice,” probably referring to the stable of the 10 Johns, Expository Times XVII 567. V. THE HEBREW SABBATH. 121 royal or official household, and the shepherd in charge of the temple sacrificial animals. These entries are made for each day of the month; but following the entry for the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days, there is written in some of the records an additional item, namely, ^^one khitpi,’^ which word apparently means offering ^nd in the others the words ^^one kid for an offering.^’ There is, however, a variation in the days. Nine of the records have the same succession of seven days, but on the rest of the tablets the previous day is occasionally mentioned, as the 6th, 13th, 20th, and 27th; and in one instance the 26th day. This would simply show that the kid for the offering was in some instances delivered on the day previous to the one appointed. These tablets show the first actual observance of anything in Babylonia that suggests the existence of a parallel to the Sabbath. Moreover, it very probably is more than a parallel; we may have here proof of the observance of the Hebrew Sabbath in Babylonia; but by whom? We know that Nebuchadnezzar carried Judah into captivity. We find that the nomenclature in Babylonia, following this event, contains many Hebrew names. The Murashff archives, a century later, are full of them.^^ And we know also with what considera¬ tion Cyrus treated the foreign peoples of the land from the very beginning of his reign. In these tablets we find that from the fifth year of Cyrus, the keeper of the city’s live stock at Erech, in addition to the five and occasionally more sheep, which he daily delivered to the official stable, and four and occasionally Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions 75 ff. The only occurrence of this word known to the writer is on an Aramaic inscrip¬ tion found in the Serapaeum at Memphis; for which the translation “offerings’^ has been offered; cf. ibidem p. 77. ” Clay, Business Documents of the Mur ash'd Sons of Nippur, 122 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. more to the shepherd of the sacrificial animals, gave a kid for an offering,’^ on the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days. While it is not specified who received these four kids each month, knowing that thousands of Hebrews were in the land, it seems reasonable to conjecture that they were given to Hebrew menials who were in the employ of the court or temple, so that they could keep their feast in accordance with their religion. There have already been published hundreds of h 3 mins from Babylonia, and hundreds of ritual texts. The mass of this kind of literature is ten times greater than that found in the Old Testa¬ ment. We have also a large body of laws from the early and late periods. In these, as well as in the mass of other texts, besides what is referred to above, there is not a semblance of an idea cor¬ responding to the Hebrew Sabbath, nor any reference to the word (r. e., shahhat, not shapattu or shahattu). Whether in view of the fact that the ^^new moon’^ and the Sabbath in the Old Testament, stand in juxtaposition in so many passages the Sabbath was originally the day of the ^Tull moon,^’ i. e.j the fifteenth day of the month, need not concern us here.^'* Suffice it to say that besides the requirements for the king, specified in the calendar for the periods of seven days, including the 19th of the intercalary Second Elul, which are simply designated as ^^evil days,^^ there are no data to show that the general activities of life in Babylonia were interrupted on what corresponds to the Hebrew Sabbath, not even on the fifteenth day of the month, which was designated as shapattu; that there is no etymological evidence to show that the root shahat, corresponding to the Hebrew, was in use in Babylonia; and that besides the occurence of the word shapattu in lists, or dictionaries of rare words, it is not found in the literature of the Babylonians except in the Amorite Enuma elish On this question see Jastrow, Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang. 30, 94 ff. V. THE HEBREW SABBATH. 123 (V: 18). Moreover it is highly probable that shapattu is a reflection of the Hebrew shahhath.^^ In view of all this, and also of the conclusion that the current of religious ideas flowed not in the direction of S 3 a*ia and Palestine, as shown above in the second chapter, will scholars continue to promulgate the idea that the Hebrew Sabbath is of Babylonian origin? We have a right to expect more than this. Do not the scholars who have promulgated these ideas, if they have become convinced that their published views are wrong, have a responsi¬ bility to the Bible student in letting this fact become known? i®This is the view also of Professor Torrey, who says that the Babylonian shabattu was borrowed from the West-Semi tic shab'at meaning “seven’^ {AJSL 33, 53.) VI THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS Many Assyriologists hold the view that the names of the ante¬ diluvian patriarchs of Genesis are translations of, or that they were otherwise made to be equivalents of, Babylonian names, in some instances of antediluvian kings, and in others, of kings from post¬ diluvian dynastic lists. It matters not whether those selected for the purpose belong to kings or sages. Some of the names used to show the origin of the early patriarchs are taken from Senoitic, and others from Sumerian, lists, while several are deliberately changed to make them conform to those with which it is desired to identify them. The possibihty that the ancestors of the Hebrews had their own traditional lists, is by them not even taken into consideration. It is in this way, we are informed, the Hebrew writers make up their fictitious lists of patriarchal ancestors. A discussion of personal names is not ordinarily inviting to the average Bible student; nevertheless, I think even those not familiar with Semitic philology will not only be able to judge intelligently for themselves as to the merits of Babylonism, as it bears upon this subject, but will also find, I think, considerable interest in the display of effort made by scholars to prove the Babylonian origin of the Hebrew antediluvians, especially in studying the tabulated results on pages 125-7. There are four sources of data used in trying to prove the Baby- Ionian origin of these characters. The first of these is the Biblical. As is well known, there are two genealogical traditions or series of patriarchs in Genesis between the creation and the deluge, one having seven names, which is generally recognized as belonging to what is called the Jehovist version (J.), and the other having (124) VI. THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 125 ten, as belonging to what is called the Priestly version (P.). There are also divergences as to the order and the form in which some of the names appear (see below). The second source of the material used in identifying the Biblical patriarchs with the Babylonian is the hst of antediluvian Chaldean kings w^hich has been handed down by Berossus, as preserved in the writings of Eusebius and Syncellus, who had obtained their data from writings of Apollodorus, Abydenus, and Polyhistor.^ As a result, the names said to have been copied by Berossus at Babylon, are handed down in variant forms (see below). Professor Langdon of Oxford has recently published the thir d source, namely, a tablet of the Ashmolean Museum consisting of eighteen lines, some of which are unfortunately fragmentary.^ This also gives ten kings who ruled before the flood, ending with the hero; but instead of the name Atra-khasis (Xisuthros), it gives the Sumerian form of the title he received after the deluge, namely Zi-fl-sud-du (= Um-napishtim-ruqu) (see Chapter VII). Unfortunately only three of the names or titles are complete, and the reading of one of these is yet to be explained. The fourth source of material used to show the origin of the Hebrew patriarchs is in the earj^ dynastic list of kings who ruled in Babylonia subsequent to t]fie deluge.® These have furnished V additional material for certain scholars in their efforts to prove the Biblical patriarchs to be of Babylonian origin. Jehovistic Adam The Biblical Lists Priestly 1 Adam. 130 —2 Seth. 105 Seth 3 Enosh.v .. 90 930 years^ 912 905 it ^ See Cory, Ancient Fragments, from which the variants gi’^n below are taken. 2 Jour. Royal Asiatic Society, Apr. 1923, 251. 2 See Poebel, Historical Texts 73 ff., or Clay, Jour. Am. Or. Soc. 41, 241 ff. * The first column gives the age at the birth of the son whose name follows, and the second column, all his years. V 126 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. 3 Enosh 4 Kenan. 70 910 years 4 Cain 5 Mahalal-El. 65 895 5 Enoch 6 Yered. 162 962 6 ’Irad 7 Enoch. 65 365 7 Mehuja-El 8 Methush®-Elakh. 187 969 8 Methusha-El 9 Lamech. 182 777 ** 9 Lamech 10 Noah. 500 [950] ** 10 Noah Age at deluge... 100 ** 1656 The Berossus List of Chaldean Kings 1 ^Al5ros. 2 ’Alaparos, Alapaurm . 3 ’Amillaros, ^Amelon, Almelon . 4 ^Ammenon. 5 Megalaros, Megalanos, Amegalarus . 6 Daonos, Daos, Da{v)onus shepherd.. 7 EuedOrakhos, Euedoreskhos, Edoranchus 8 ^Amempsinos, Amemphsinus . 9 ^Ardatas, ’Otiartas. 10 Xisouthros, Sisouthros, Xisuthrus . Total. Years City 10 sars Babylon 3 ti “ (?) 13 tt Pantibibk 12 11 tt 18 ii tt 10 11 tt 18 t( tt 10 11 Larak 8 18 a “ (?) 120 tt (432,00 years) The Ashmolean Museum List 1 . x-alim . 2 .... Idl-gdr . 3 . .-ki-du-un-nu-sha-kin-kin 4 .... x-x . 5 .. -zi-sib . 6 . .-en-lu-an-na . 7 . sib-zi an-na . 8 En-me-4ur-an-na . Years City 67,200® Khabur 72,000 tt 72,000 Larsa 21,600 it 28,800 DtiT Tib 21,600 tt 36,000 Larak 72,000 Sippar There is an additional sar at the end of the line unaccounted for. This may be the determinative kam which follows numbers. VI. THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIAECHS. 127 9 Su-kur-Lam dumu (“son of”) Uhur-Tu-Tu ... 28,800 Su-kur-Lam 10 Zi-iH-sud-du dumu Su-kur-Lam-Gi . 26,000 Total.460,400 years Let us first discuss briefly the recently published Ashmolean inscription, concerning which Professor Langdon writes as follows: ^‘The Weld-Blundell tablet proves that the legend of the ten pre- diluvian patriarchs preserved in Hebrew tradition and by the Greek historians of Babylonia was Sumerian.” The post-exilic writer P., in Genesis X, he adds, “clearly borrowed the idea from the common Sumerian source.” Langdon reads the last sign of the first name alim, which he says “clearly represents the original of the Greek ^AldrosJ^ But even were this true, what is to be said about the three or more signs of the name which precede aZfm, one of which is partly preserved? The second name he reads [A]-ldUgdr, which he says “may con¬ ceivably afford an explanation of the name Alaparos given by Berossus. The Greeks corrupted P gamma to H pe(pi).” I doubt whether scholars will accept the equation Alalgar Alaparos. Langdon says that the sixth name of the Berossus list, ^‘Dadnus is obviously a textual corruption for LadnuSy a transcription of lu-an-naJ^ One thing can be said in favor of the identification, and that is both are the sixth in the lists. But what is to be done about the unpreserved first part of the name, which reads, .... en- lu-an-naP The next name,. sih-zi-an-na, he says “was, somehow, cor¬ rupted into Amempsinos in the text preserved by Berossus, and occurs wrongly as the eighth king, not the seventh.” In favor of this it is said that both ruled ten sars (36,000) of years; but there ® Since Anna reproduces El, as already shown, I would sooner think that this name would eventually prove to represent Mahalal-El. 128 THE ORIGIN OF BIBLICAL TRADITIONS. are five of the ten rulers, three in the one list and two in the other, who are credited as having ruled ten sars. But see below. Concerning the eighth ruler, called En-me’-dur-an-naj he says ^^The variant readings’^ of Euedoranchos, etc., the seventh of the Berossus list, prove that the Sumerian original was En-me-dur- an-ki” This identification with the name of the Sippar seer and king, made years ago by Zimmern, is very probably correct. In favor of the identification attention is called to the fact that one came from Pantibiblos and the other from Sippar, which are thought to refer to the same city (see further below). I cannot, however, follow Langdon in holding that it is originally a Sumerian name. Langdon reads the signs Su-kur-Lam in the ninth name = Arad or Aratti; and the name At ad-gin; this he identifies with ^Ardatas. Lam might be a mistake for ru. However, even though his con¬ jectural readings should prove correct, Arad-gin = ^Ardatas is not very convincing. The tenth name is, as stated above, the title that the hero received after the deluge. This tablet, like the Biblical Priestly and the Berossus lists, gives ten antediluvians, the last of whom is the hero of the deluge story. This list gives also the name Uhur-Tu-Tu as the grandfather of the hero, which is nearly the same as Uhar-Tu-Tu, the father of the hero in the Gilgamesh story of the deluge. I presume since the proof that the Priestly Biblical writer borrowed his names from this Sumerian source is not found in the discussion, Langdon means that this statement is according to what he has previously presented (see below). I only desire to add here that the fact that the names are written in Sumerian does not imply or prove that the kings were Sumerians (see page 165). Moreover, it seems from what follows that the tradition goes back to a Semitic source. In discussing the subject of the Hebrew borrowings, let us first consider a statement bearing upon the patriarchs as a whole. Professor Langdon says that the J. writer, in replacing the names VI. THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATKIARCHS. 129 in the Berossus list, reproduced the spirit of it as being connected with the arts, which was wholly misunderstood by the author of the P. list. He also says that “the J. document with its seven patriarchs is obviously based upon the Sumero-Babylonian tradi¬ tions of divine patrons of industries.^It should, however, be stated that the text, on which the idea of these “patrons of indus¬ tries’’ is based, is rather a myth concerning the birth of eight gods and goddesses to whom was given power over certain diseases of the cattle, the flocks, the mouth, the genital organs, etc. Let us also look at this statement from another point of view. As far as I can observe from all the sources used by Babylonists to show where the Hebrew writers secured their data, besides all the rulers being called “kings,” it is added only that several were “shepherds,” and in two instances, the names of seers or priests figure in these efforts. Furthermore, besides the sons of Lamech, only one in both lists of the Old Testament patriarchs is said to be a so-called “patron of the arts,” namely, Cain “the tiller” and “builder.”® Let us now proceed to examine the contentions concerning the connections of the Biblical list with that of Berossus. The ten names which form the chief basis for this have been handed down as those of ten antediluvian kings of Babylon. The variant forms given in parentheses are found, as stated, in the different Greek and Latin versions. 1. ’Aloros (’AX . ». • . • ' V >4 '..^ 1 . . k.