Part 1 (1/2)
The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends of a.s.syria and Babylonia.
by Theophilus Goldridge Pinches.
FOREWORD
The present work, being merely a record of things for the most part well known to students and others, cannot, on that account, contain much that is new. All that has been aimed at is, to bring together as many of the old discoveries as possible in a new dress.
It has been thought well to let the records tell their story as far as possible in their own way, by the introduction of translations, thus breaking the monotony of the narrative, and also infusing into it an element of local colour calculated to bring the reader into touch, as it were, with the thoughts and feelings of the nations with whom the records originated. Bearing, as it does, upon the life, history, and legends of the ancient nations of which it treats, controversial matter has been avoided, and the higher criticism left altogether aside.
a.s.syriology (as the study of the literature and antiquities of the Babylonians and a.s.syrians is called) being a study still in the course of development, improvements in the renderings of the inscriptions will doubtless from time to time be made, and before many months have pa.s.sed, things now obscure may have new light thrown upon them, necessitating the revision of such portions as may be affected thereby. It is intended to utilize in future editions any new discoveries which may come to light, and every effort will be made to keep the book up to date.
For shortcomings, whether in the text or in the translations, the author craves the indulgence of the reader, merely pleading the difficult and exacting nature of the study, and the lengthy chronological period to which the book refers.
A little explanation is probably needful upon the question of p.r.o.nunciation. The vowels in a.s.syro-Babylonian should be uttered as in Italian or German. _?_ is a strong guttural like the Scotch _ch_ in ”loch”; _m_ had sometimes the p.r.o.nunciation of _w_, as in Tiamtu (= Tiawthu), so that the spelling of some of the words containing that letter may later have to be modified. The p.r.o.nunciation of _s_ and __ is doubtful, but a.s.syriologists generally (and probably wrongly) give the sound of _s_ to the former and _sh_ to the latter. _T_ was often p.r.o.nounced as _th_, and probably always had that sound in the feminine endings _-tu_, _-ti_, _-ta_, or _at_, so that Tiamtu, for instance, may be p.r.o.nounced Tiawthu, Tukulti-apil-earra (Tiglath-pileser), Tukulthi-apil-earra, etc., etc., and in such words as _qata_, ”the hands,” _umati_, ”names,” and many others, this was probably always the case. In the names abil-Addu-nathanu and Nathanu-yawa this transcription has been adopted, and may be regarded as correct. _P_ was likewise often aspirated, a.s.suming the sound of _ph_ or _f_, and _k_ a.s.sumed, at least in later times, a sound similar to _? (kh)_, whilst _b_ seems sometimes to have been p.r.o.nounced as _v_. _G_ was, to all appearance, never soft, as in _gem_, but may sometimes have been aspirated. Each member of the group _ph_ is p.r.o.nounced separately. _?_ is an emphatic _t_, stronger than in the word ”time.” A terminal _m_ represents the _mimmation_, which, in later times, though written, was not p.r.o.nounced.
The second edition, issued in 1903, was revised and brought up to date, and a translation of the Laws of ?ammurabi, with notes, and a summary of Delitzsch's _Babel und Bibel_, were appended. For the third edition the work has again been revised, with the help of the recently-issued works of King, Sayce, Scheil, Winckler, and others. At the time of going to press, the author was unable to consult Knudtzon's new edition of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets beyond his No. 228, but wherever it was available, improvements in the translations were made. In addition to revision, the Appendix has been supplemented by paragraphs upon the discoveries at Boghaz-Keui, a mutilated letter from a personage named Belshazzar, and translations of the papyri referring to the Jewish temple at Elephantine.
New material may still be expected from the excavations in progress at Babylon, Susa, ?attu, and various other sites in the nearer East.
THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES.
CHAPTER I. THE EARLY TRADITIONS OF THE CREATION.
The Hebrew account-Its princ.i.p.al points-The Babylonian account-The story of the Creation properly so called-The version given by the Greek authors-Comparison of the Hebrew and the Greek accounts-The likenesses-The differences-Bel and the Dragon-The epilogue-Sidelights (notes upon the religion of the Babylonians).
To find out how the world was made, or rather, to give forth a theory accounting for its origin and continued existence, is one of the subjects that has attracted the attention of thinking minds among all nations having any pretension to civilization. It was, therefore, to be expected that the ancient Babylonians and a.s.syrians, far advanced in civilization as they were at an exceedingly early date, should have formed opinions thereupon, and placed them on record as soon as those opinions were matured, and the art of writing had been perfected sufficiently to enable a serviceable account to be composed.
This, naturally, did not take place all at once. We may take it for granted that the history of the Creation grew piece by piece, as different minds thought over and elaborated it. The first theories we should expect to find more or less improbable-wild stories of serpents and G.o.ds, emblematic of the conflicting powers of good and evil, which, with them, had their origin before the advent of mankind upon the earth.
But all men would not have the same opinion of the way in which the universe came into existence, and this would give rise, as really happened in Babylonia, to conflicting accounts or theories, the later ones less improbable than, and therefore superior to, the earlier. The earlier Creation-legend, being a sort of heroic poem, would remain popular with the common people, who always love stories of heroes and mighty conflicts, such as those in which the Babylonians and a.s.syrians to the latest times delighted, and of which the Semitic Babylonian Creation-story consists.
As the ages pa.s.sed by, and the newer theories grew up, the older popular ones would be elaborated, and new ideas from the later theories of the Creation would be incorporated, whilst, at the same time, mystical meanings would be given to the events recorded in the earlier legends to make them fit in with the newer ones. This having been done, the scribes could appeal at the same time to both ignorant and learned, explaining how the crude legends of the past were but a type of the doctrines put forward by the philosophers of later and more enlightened days, bringing within the range of the intellect of the unlearned all those things in which the more thoughtful spirits also believed. By this means an enlightened monotheism and the grossest polytheism could, and did, exist side by side, as well as clever and reasonable cosmologies along with the strangest and wildest legends.
Thus it is that we have from the literature of two closely allied peoples, the Babylonians and the Hebrews, accounts of the Creation of the world so widely differing, and, at the same time, possessing, here and there, certain ideas in common-ideas darkly veiled in the old Babylonian story, but clearly expressed in the comparatively late Hebrew account.
It must not be thought, however, that the above theory as to the origin of the Hebrew Creation-story interferes in any way with the doctrine of its inspiration. We are not bound to accept the opinion so generally held by theologians, that the days of creation referred to in Genesis i. probably indicate that each act of creation-each day-was revealed in seven successive dreams, in order, to the inspired writer of the book. The opinion held by other theologians, that ”inspiration” simply means that the writer was moved by the Spirit of G.o.d to choose from doc.u.ments already existing such portions as would serve for our enlightenment and instruction, adding, at the same time, such additions of his own as he was led to think to be needful, may be held to be a satisfactory definition of the term in question.
Without, therefore, binding ourselves down to any hard and fast line as to date, we may regard, for the purposes of this inquiry, the Hebrew account of the Creation as one of the traditions handed down in the thought of many minds extending over many centuries, and as having been chosen and elaborated by the inspired writer of Genesis for the purpose of his narrative, the object of which was to set forth the origin of man and the Hebrew nation, to which he belonged, and whose history he was about to narrate in detail.
The Hebrew story of the Creation, as detailed in Genesis i., may be regarded as one of the most remarkable doc.u.ments ever produced. It must not be forgotten, however, that it is a doc.u.ment that is essentially Hebrew. For the author of this book the language of G.o.d and of the first man was Hebrew-a literary language, showing much phonetic decay. The retention of this matter (its omission not being essential at the period of the composition of the book) is probably due, in part, to the natural patriotism of the writer, overruling what ought to have been his inspired common-sense. How this is to be explained it is not the intention of the writer of this book to inquire, the account of the Creation and its parallels being the subject in hand at present.
The question of language apart, the account of the Creation in Genesis is in the highest degree a common-sense one. The creation of (1) the heaven, and (2) the earth; the darkness-not upon the face of the earth, but upon the face of the deep. Then the expansion dividing the waters above from the waters below on the earth. In the midst of this waste of waters dry land afterwards appears, followed by the growth of vegetation. But the sun and the moon had not yet been appointed, nor the stars, all of which come into being at this point. Last of all are introduced the living things of the earth-fish, and bird, and creeping thing, followed by the animals, and, finally, by man.
It is noteworthy and interesting that, in this account, the acts of creation are divided into seven periods, each of which is called a ”day,”
and begins, like the natural day in the time-reckoning of the Semitic nations, with the evening-”and it was evening, and it was morning, day one.” It describes what the heavenly bodies were for-they were not only to give light upon the earth-they were also for signs, for seasons, for days, and for years.
And then, concerning man, a very circ.u.mstantial account is given. He was to have dominion over everything upon the earth-the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, the cattle, and every creeping thing. All was given to him, and he, like the creatures made before him, was told to ”be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” It is with this crowning work of creation that the first chapter of the Book of Genesis ends.