Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition.pdf

First Dynasty, whose genius for method and organization produced alike Hammurabi's Code of Laws and the straight
streets of the capital.
We have thus been able to trace the various strands of the Semitic- Babylonian poem of Creation to Sumerian origins;
and in the second lecture we arrived at a very similar conclusion with regard to the Semitic-Babylonian Version of the
Deluge preserved in the Epic of Gilgamesh. We there saw that the literary structure of the Sumerian Version, in which
Creation and Deluge are combined, must have survived under some form into the Neo-Babylonian period, since it was
reproduced by Berossus. And we noted the fact that the same arrangement in Genesis did not therefore prove that the
Hebrew accounts go back directly to early Sumerian originals. In fact, the structural resemblance presented by Genesis
can only be regarded as an additional proof that the Sumerian originals continued to be studied and translated by the
Semitic priesthood, although they had long been superseded officially by their later descendants, the Semitic epics. A
detailed comparison of the Creation and Deluge narratives in the various versions at once discloses the fact that the
connexion between those of the Semitic Babylonians and the Hebrews is far closer and more striking than that which
can be traced when the latter are placed beside the Sumerian originals. We may therefore regard it as certain that the
Hebrews derived their knowledge of Sumerian tradition, not directly from the Sumerians themselves, but through
Semitic channels from Babylon.
It will be unnecessary here to go in detail through the points of resemblance that are admitted to exist between the
Hebrew account of Creation in the first chapter of Genesis and that preserved in the "Seven Tablets".[1] It will suffice
to emphasize two of them, which gain in significance through our newly acquired knowledge of early Sumerian
beliefs. It must be admitted that, on first reading the poem, one is struck more by the differences than by the parallels;
but that is due to the polytheistic basis of the poem, which attracts attention when compared with the severe and
dignified monotheism of the Hebrew writer. And if allowance be made for the change in theological standpoint, the
material points of resemblance are seen to be very marked. The outline or general course of events is the same. In both
we have an abyss of waters at the beginning denoted by almost the same Semitic word, the Hebrew /tehôm/, translated
"the deep" in Gen. i. 2, being the equivalent of the Semitic-Babylonian /Tiamat/, the monster of storm and flood who
presents so striking a contrast to the Sumerian primaeval water.[2] The second act of Creation in the Hebrew narrative
is that of a "firmament", which divided the waters under it from those above.[3] But this, as we have seen, has no
parallel in the early Sumerian conception until it was combined with the Dragon combat in the form in which we find
it in the Babylonian poem. There the body of Tiamat is divided by Marduk, and from one half of her he constructs a
covering or dome for heaven, that is to say a "firmament", to keep her upper waters in place. These will suffice as text
passages, since they serve to point out quite clearly the Semitic source to which all the other detailed points of Hebrew
resemblance may be traced.
[1] See /Seven Tablets/, Vol. I, pp. lxxxi ff., and Skinner, /Genesis/, pp. 45 ff.
[2] The invariable use of the Hebrew word /tehôm/ without the article, except in two passages in the plural, proves that
it is a proper name (cf. Skinner, op. cit., p. 17); and its correspondence with /Tiamat/ makes the resemblance of the
versions far more significant than if their parallelism were confined solely to ideas.
[3] Gen. i. 6-8.
In the case of the Deluge traditions, so conclusive a demonstration is not possible, since we have no similar criterion to
apply. And on one point, as we saw, the Hebrew Versions preserve an original Sumerian strand of the narrative that
was not woven into the Gilgamesh Epic, where there is no parallel to the piety of Noah. But from the detailed
description that was given in the second lecture, it will have been noted that the Sumerian account is on the whole far
simpler and more primitive than the other versions. It is only in the Babylonian Epic, for example, that the later
Hebrew writer finds material from which to construct the ark, while the sweet savour of Ut-napishtim's sacrifice, and
possibly his sending forth of the birds, though reproduced in the earlier Hebrew Version, find no parallels in the
Sumerian account.[1] As to the general character of the Flood, there is no direct reference to rain in the Sumerian
Version, though its presence is probably implied in the storm. The heavy rain of the Babylonian Epic has been
increased to forty days of rain in the earlier Hebrew Version, which would be suitable to a country where local rain
was the sole cause of flood. But the later Hebrew writer's addition of "the fountains of the deep" to "the windows of
heaven" certainly suggests a more intimate knowledge of Mesopotamia, where some contributary cause other than