Part 1 (2/2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anar, the G.o.d Anu......”

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

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

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

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

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

<script>