The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 8

Babylonian Mythological Composition. Impression of a cylinder-seal showing a male figure on the right and a bull-man on the left, holding erect bulls by the horns and tails. In the centre is a form of the sacred tree on a hill. Date about 2500 B.C. British Museum.

[Plate III B.]

Babylonian Mythological Composition. Impression of a cylinder-seal showing Istar, G.o.ddess of love and of war as archeress, standing on the back of a lion, which turns its head to caress her feet. Before her is a wors.h.i.+pper (priest) and two goats (reversed to form a symmetrical design), leaping.

Behind her is a date-palm. Date about 650 B.C. British Museum.

Among other trees of a sacred nature is "the cedar beloved of the great G.o.ds," mentioned in an inscription of a religious or ceremonial nature, though exactly in what connection the imperfectness of the doc.u.ment does not enable us to see. It would seem, however, that there were certain priests or seers to whom was confided the "tablet of the G.o.ds," containing the secret of the heavens and earth (probably the "tablet of fate," which Merodach took from the husband of Tiamat after his fight with her for the dominion of the universe). These persons, who seem to have been the descendants of En-we-dur-an-ki (the Euedoranchos of Berosus), king of Sippar, were those to whom was confided "the cedar beloved of the great G.o.ds"-perhaps a kind of sceptre. They had, however, not only to be of n.o.ble race, but also perfect physically and free from every defect and disease. Moreover, one who did not keep the command of ama and Addu (Hadad) could not approach the place of Ae, ama, Marduk, and Nin-edina, nor the number of the brothers who were to enter the seers.h.i.+p; they were not to reveal to him the word of the oracle, and "the cedar beloved of the great G.o.ds" was not to be delivered into his hands.

There is hardly any doubt, then, that we have here the long-sought parallel to the Biblical "tree of knowledge," for that, too, was in the domain of "the lord of knowledge," the G.o.d Ae, and also in the land which might be described as that of "the lord of Eden," the "hidden place of heaven and earth" for all the sons of Adam, who are no longer allowed to enter into that earthly Paradise wherein their first parents gained, at such a cost, the knowledge, imperfect as it must have been, and evidently undesirable, which they handed down to their successors.

Adam.

The name of the first man, Adam, is one that has tried the learning of the most noted Hebraists to explain satisfactorily. It was formerly regarded as being derived from the root _adam_, "to be red," but this explanation has been given up in favour of the root _adam_, "to make, produce," man being conceived as "the created one." This etymology is that put forward by the a.s.syriologist Fried. Delitzsch, who quotes the a.s.syrian _admu_, "young bird," and _admi summati_, "young doves," literally, "the young of doves," though he does not seem to refer the a.s.syrian _udumu_, "monkey,"

to the same root. He also quotes, apparently from memory, the evidence of a fragment of a bilingual list found by Mr. Ra.s.sam, in which Adam is explained by the usual Babylonian word for "man," _amelu_.

The writer of Genesis has given to the first man the name of Adam, thus personifying in him the human race, which was to descend from him. In all probability, the Babylonians had the same legends, but, if so, no fragment of them has as yet come to light. That the Hebrew stories of the Creation had their origin in Babylonia, will probably be conceded by most people as probable, if not actually proven, and the fact that the word _a-dam_ occurs, as Delitzsch has pointed out, in a bilingual list would, supposing the text to which he refers to be actually bilingual, be a matter of peculiar significance, for it would show that this word, which does not occur in Semitic Babylonian as the word for "man," occurred in the old Akkadian language with that meaning.

And the proof that Delitzsch was right in his recollection of the tablet of which he speaks, is shown by the bilingual Babylonian story of the Creation. There, in lines 9, 10, we read as follows-

Akkadian (dialectic): Uru nu-dim, a-dam nu-mun-ia.

Babylonian: alu ul epu, nammau ul akin.

"A city had not been made, the community had not been established."

Here we have the non-Semitic _adam_ translated by the Babylonian _nammau_, which seems to mean a number of men, in this pa.s.sage something like community, for that is the idea which best fits the context. But besides this Semitic rendering, the word also has the meanings of _tenietu_, "mankind," _amelutu_, "human beings."

The word _adam_, meaning "man," is found also in Phnician, Sabean, and apparently in Arabic, under the form of _atam_, a collective meaning "creatures."

The possibility that the Babylonians had an account of the Fall similar to that of the Hebrews, is not only suggested by the legends treated of above, but also by the cylinder-seal in the British Museum with what seems to be the representation of the Temptation engraved upon it. We have there presented to us the picture of a tree-a palm-bearing fruit, and on each side of it a seated figure, that on the right being to all appearance the man, and that on the left the woman, though there is not much difference between them, and, as far as the form of either goes, the s.e.xes might easily be reversed. That, however, which seems to be intended for the man has the horned hat emblematic of divinity, or, probably, of divine origin, whilst from the figure which seems to be that of the woman this head-dress is absent. Behind her, moreover, with wavy body standing erect on his tail, is shown the serpent, towering just above her head, as if ready to speak with her. Both figures are stretching out a hand (the man the right, the woman the left) as if to pluck the fruit growing on the tree.

Notwithstanding the doubts that have been thrown on the explanation here given of this celebrated and exceedingly interesting cylinder, the subject and its arrangement are so suggestive, that one can hardly regard it as being other than what it seems to be, namely, a Babylonian representation of the Temptation, according to records that the Babylonians possessed.

The date of this object may be set down as being from about 2750 to 2000 B.C.

Future excavations in Babylonia and a.s.syria will, no doubt, furnish us with the legends current in those countries concerning the Temptation, the Fall, and the sequel thereto. Great interest would naturally attach to the Babylonian rendering of the details and development of the story, more particularly to the terms of the penalty, the expulsion, and the nature of the beings-the cherubim-placed at the east of the garden, and "the flaming sword turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Though the Babylonian version of this Biblical story has not yet come to light, the inscriptions in the wedge-writing give us a few details bearing upon the word "cherub."

The Hebrews understood these celestial beings as having the form which we attribute to angels-a glorified human appearance, but with the addition of wings. They are spoken of as bearing the throne of the Almighty through the clouds ("He rode upon a cherub, and did fly"), and in Psalm xviii. 11 he is also represented as sitting upon them. In Ezekiel i. and x. they are said to be of a very composite form, combining with the human shape the face of a cherub (whatever that may have been), a man, an ox, a lion, and an eagle. It has been supposed that Ezekiel was indebted to a.s.syro-Babylonian imagery for the details of the cherubic creatures that he describes, but it may safely be said that, though the sculptures furnish us with images of divine creatures in the form of a man with the face of an eagle, or having a modification of a lion's head, and bulls and lions with the faces of men, there has never yet been found a figure provided with a wheel for the purpose of locomotion, and having four heads, like those of which the prophet speaks. We may, therefore, safely conclude, that Ezekiel applied the word _kerub_ (cherub) to the creatures that he saw in his vision, because that was the most suitable word he could find, not because it was the term usually applied to things of that kind. It is hardly likely that the guardians of the entrance into the earthly Paradise and the creatures that bore up the throne of the Almighty were conceived as being of so complicated a form as the cherubim of Ezekiel.

Whatever doubt may exist as to the original form of this celestial being, the discussion of the origin of the Hebrew word _kerub_ may now be regarded as finally settled by the discovery of the a.s.syro-Babylonian records. It is undoubtedly borrowed from the Babylonian _kirubu_, a word meaning simply "spirit," and conceived as one who was always in the presence (_ina kirib_) of G.o.d, and formed from the root _qarabu_, "to be near." The change from _q_ (qoph) to _k_ (kaph) is very common in Babylonian, and occurs more frequently before _e_ and _i_, hence the form in Hebrew, _kerub_ (cherub-the translators intended that _ch_ should be p.r.o.nounced as _k_) for _qerub_ (which the translators would have transcribed as _kerub_).

Originally the a.s.syro-Babylonian word _kirubu_ seems to have meant something like "intimate friend," or "familiar," as in the expression _kirub arri_, "familiar of the king," mentioned between "daughter of the king," and "the beloved woman of the king." An ill.u.s.tration of its extended meaning of "spirit," however, occurs in the following lines from "the tablet of Good Wishes"-

"In thy mouth may there be perfection of speech (_lu asim dababu_); In thine eye may there be brightness of sight (_lu namir ni?lu_); In thine ear may there be a spirit of hearing"

(_lu_ KIRUB _nimu_, lit. 'a cherub of hearing')."

The cherubim were therefore the good spirits who performed the will of G.o.d, and, in the minds of the a.s.syrians and Babylonians, watched over and guarded the man who was the "son of his G.o.d," _i.e._ the pious man.

The cherub upon which the Almighty rode, and upon whom he sat, corresponds more to the _guzalu_ or "throne-bearer" of a.s.syro-Babylonian mythology.

They were apparently beings who bore up the thrones of the G.o.ds, and are frequently to be seen in Babylonian sculptures thus employed, at rest, and waiting patiently, to all appearance, until their divine master, seated on the throne which rests on their shoulders, should again give them word, or make known that it was now his will to start and journey forth once more.

The story of Cain and Abel, and the first tragedy that occurred in the world after the creation of man, has always attracted the attention of the pious on that account, and because the first recorded murder was that of a brother. This is a story to which the discovery of a Babylonian parallel was least likely to be found, and, as a matter of fact, none has as yet come to light. Notwithstanding this, a few remarks upon such remote parallels which exist, and such few ill.u.s.trations of the event that can be found, may be cited in this place.

These are contained in the story of Tammuz or Adonis, who, though not supposed to have been slain by his brother, was nevertheless killed by the cold of Winter, who might easily have been regarded as his brother, for Tammuz typified the season of Summer, the Brother-season, so to say, of Winter. As is well known, the name Tammuz is Akkadian, and occurs in that language under the form of Dumu-zi, or, more fully, Dumu-zida, meaning "the everlasting son," in Semitic Babylonian _ablu kenu_. It is very noteworthy that Prof. J. Oppert has suggested that the name of Abel, in Hebrew Habel, is, in reality, none other than the Babylonian _ablu_, "son," and the question naturally arises, May not the story of Cain and Abel have given rise to the legend of Tammuz, or _Ablu kenu_, as his name would be if translated into Semitic Babylonian?

Unless by a folk-etymology, however, the Semitic Babylonian translation of the name of Tammuz can hardly be a composition of Abel and Cain, because the first letter is _q_ (qoph) and not _k_ (kaph), the transcription Cain for Kain or Kayin being faulty in the A.V. Still, we feel bound to recognize that there is a possibility, though naturally a remote one, that the legend of Tammuz is connected with that of Cain and Abel, just as the division of the Dragon (in the Babylonian story of the Creation) by the G.o.d Merodach into two halves, with one of which he covered the heavens, leaving the other below upon the earth, typifies the division of the waters above the earth from those below in the Biblical story of the same event.

There is a legend, named by me (for want of a more precise t.i.tle) "The Lament of the Daughter of the G.o.d Sin," in which the carrying off (by death?) of "her fair son" is referred to. Here we have another possible Babylonian parallel to the story of the death of Abel, in which the driving forth of her who makes the lament from her city and from her palace might well typify the expulsion of Eve from Paradise, and her delivery into the power of her enemy, who is, to all appearance, the king of terrors, into whose hands she and her husband were, for their disobedience, consigned. In this really beautiful Babylonian poem her "enemy" seems to reproach her, telling her how it was she, and she alone, who had ruined herself.

Though there may be something in the comparisons with the story of Cain and Abel which are quoted here, more probably (as has been already remarked) there is nothing, and the real parallels have yet to be found.

In any case, they are instances of the popularity among the Babylonians and a.s.syrians of those stories of one, greatly beloved and in the bloom of youth, coming, like Abel, to an untimely end through the perversity of fate, and by no fault of his own. Though neither may be the original of the Biblical story nor yet derived from it, they are of interest and value as beautiful legends of old time, possibly throwing light on the Biblical story.

As yet the Babylonian and a.s.syrian records shed but little light on the question of the patriarchs of the early ages succeeding Adam, the details that are given concerning them, and their long lives. Upon this last point there is only one remark to be made, and that is, that the prehistoric kings of Babylonia likewise lived and reigned for abnormally long ages, according to the records that have come down to us. Unfortunately, there is nothing complete in the important original of the Canon of Berosus first published by the late G. Smith, and the beginning is especially mutilated.

The likeness between Enoch and the Akkadian name of the city of Erech, Unug, has already been pointed out, and it has been suggested that the two words are identical. This, however, can hardly be the case, for the Hebrew form of Enoch is ?ano?, the initial letter being the guttural _?eth_, which, notwithstanding the parallel ease of Hiddekel, the Akkadian Idigna (the Tigris), weakens the comparison. The princ.i.p.al argument against the identification, however, is the fact that, in the bilingual story of the Creation, the G.o.d Merodach is said to have built the city, and such was evidently the Babylonian belief.(6)

The name of Enoch's great-grandson, Methusael, finds, as has many times been pointed out, its counterpart in the Babylonian Mut-ili, with the same meaning ("man of G.o.d").

[Plate IV.]

Lower part of the obverse of a terra-cotta tablet from Nineveh, inscribed with the names of Babylonian kings in Sumerian and Semitic Babylonian. The 13th line (that running across two columns) has the statement, "These are the kings who were after the Flood. They are not written in their proper order." The names of Sargina (Sargon of Agade) and Hammurabi (Amraphel) also occur. Found by Sir A. H. Layard and Hormuzd Ra.s.sam.

CHAPTER III. THE FLOOD.

The Biblical account-Its circ.u.mstantial nature and its great length-The Babylonian account-The reason of the Flood and why Pir-napitim built the Ark-His devotion to the G.o.d Ea-Ea and Jah-Ea's antagonism to Bel-The bloodless sacrifice-Ea's gift of immortality-Further observations-Appendix: The second version of the Flood-story.

Noah, son of Lamech, had reached the age of five hundred years, and had three sons, Shem, Ham, and j.a.phet; and at this time men had begun to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them; then "the sons of G.o.d saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all that they chose."

The question naturally arises, "Who were these sons of G.o.d?" According to Job x.x.xviii. 7, where we have the statement that "The morning stars sang together, and all the sons of G.o.d shouted for joy," it would seem to be the angels that are intended by these words, and this is apparently the opinion generally held by scholars and divines on the subject. This view seems to be favoured by the Second Epistle of Peter (ii. 1), though, as the words do not actually agree with those of the text of Genesis quoted above, nothing very positive can be maintained concerning the apostle's dictum-in fact, his words in the pa.s.sage referred to, "for if G.o.d spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to h.e.l.l, and delivered them into chains and darkness, to be reserved unto judgment," can much more reasonably be regarded as referring, and therefore giving authority to, the story of the fall of the angels, as indicated in Avitus, Caedmon, and Milton, a legend of which the germs are found in the Babylonian account of the Creation, referred to in Chapter I. The other pa.s.sages of Job where this expression occurs (i. 6, and ii. 2) are not conclusive as to the meaning "angels," for the expressions "sons of G.o.d," in those pa.s.sages, who are said to have come before the Almighty, may very well have been merely men.

However the matter may stand, for the pa.s.sages in Job, there is every probability that it is not the angels that are intended in the description we are examining as to the reasons of the coming of the Flood. As the late George Bertin was the first to point out, the Babylonians often used the phrase "a son of his G.o.d," apparently to designate "a just man," or something similar. The connection in which this expression occurs is as follows-