Archæology and the Bible

In Job 41 there is a long description of the crocodile under the name leviathan. In verses 19-21 some things are said of him that do not suit a real crocodile, and some scholars have thought that the language was influenced by the Babylonian material. These verses are:

Out of his mouth go burning torches,
And sparks of fire leap forth.
Out of his nostrils a smoke goeth,
As of a boiling pot and burning rushes.
His breath kindleth coals,
And a flame goeth forth from his mouth.

Other references to Rahab, which have been thought to use the same illustration, are Psalm 89:10:

Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces as one that is slain;
Thou hast scattered thine enemies with the arm of thy strength.

Also, Isaiah 51:9:

Is it not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces,
That didst pierce the monster?

As to whether these sacred writers really employed the material of the Babylonian epic to give force to their illustrations, the judgments of men will differ in accordance with their views of what is possible for an inspired writer.

In the following passages Rahab is used to denote Egypt as a proud and imperious country. These uses are clearly figurative and metaphorical.

Isa. 30:7:

For Egypt helpeth in vain and to no purpose:
Therefore have I called her Rahab that sitteth still.

Psa. 87:4:

Rahab and Babylon I proclaim my votaries.

A fragmentary account of an Assyrian version of the creation epic has been found. It agrees with the Babylonian account in beginning with Tiâmat, though the course of creation appears to have been different. The tablets known to us present it, however, in a form too fragmentary for us to follow the course of the narrative.

CHAPTER II

ANOTHER ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION FOUND AT BABYLON.[364]

Text of the Account. Comparison of it with Genesis 2.

1. Text of the Account.

(At this point the tablet is broken. When it again becomes legible, it is in the midst of an incantation.)

2. Comparison with Genesis 2.

This account of the creation has sometimes been compared with Genesis 2:4, ff., which describes a time when there was no grass or vegetation on the earth, and then goes on to describe the creation of man and animals, speaking of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

In this account of the creation it is stated (line 21) that the goddess Aruru with Marduk created mankind.

In another Babylonian poem, the Gilgamesh epic, which contains the Babylonian story of the flood, there is an account of the creation of man which accords much more closely with Gen. 2:7 than that which we are considering. It runs:

The goddess Aruru, when she heard this,
A man like Anu she formed in her heart.
Aruru washed her hands;
Clay she pinched off and spat upon it;
Eabani, a hero she created,
An exalted offspring, with the might of Ninib.

Here is clearly a tradition, similar to Genesis, that God formed man from the dust of the ground. The allusion to Aruru indicates that this formed a part of the early Babylonian tradition. There is considerable evidence that in an earlier form of the Babylonian account Marduk had no place. He was introduced into it later by the priests of Babylon. Aruru was in that earlier form the creator of man, and probably was said to have formed him from clay, as in the Gilgamesh epic.

While these points of likeness are evident, there are great differences between the two narratives. The Babylonian account speaks not only of grass and reeds as non-existent, but of cities and temples also, which, it tells us, were created later. It has no picture of Eden; its thought centers in well-known Babylonian cities. While Marduk appears as supreme in the Babylonian poem, the gods and Anunaki, or spirits of earth, are recognized, so that the polytheistic view is not entirely absent. In the Biblical picture, on the other hand, Jehovah is supreme. Opinions of scholars differ as to whether there was any real connection between the two narratives. Whatever opinion one may hold on this point, there can be no question but that the second chapter of Genesis is dominated by those religious conceptions which were so uniquely manifested in Israel, while they are absent from the Babylonian narrative.

(For a new Babylonian account of the creation of man, see Appendix.)

CHAPTER III

This passage occurs in a tablet which describes the nature of all the days of a month. The same prohibitions are recorded for the fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days. The tablet has often been brought into comparison with the Hebrew sabbath, partly because the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days are involved, partly because the prohibitions remind the reader of Exodus 20:8-11 and Deut. 5:12-15.

In reality the Babylonian prohibitions apply to certain classes of people only, and not to the whole population. A study of the contract literature shows that there was no cessation of business upon these days of the month, so that resemblance to the Hebrew sabbath is really quite slight.

2. A Day Called Shabatum.

These days were not, so far as we know, called shabatum, but another tablet[366] tells us that the fifteenth day of each month was so called. Shabatum is etymologically the same as the Hebrew sabbath. As the Babylonian months were lunar, the fifteenth was the time of the full moon, so that in Babylonian the day denoted the completion of the moon’s growth. In the Old Testament “sabbath” is sometimes coupled with “new moon,” as though it may also have designated a similar day. (See 2 Kings 4:23; Amos 8:5; Hosea 2:11; Isa. 1:13; 66:23, and Ezek. 46:3.) This Babylonian shabatum can, in any event, have no direct relationship to the Hebrew sabbath as a day of rest once a week.

3. A Day in Some Tablets at Yale.

A series of tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collection, a portion of which has been published by Prof. Clay,[367] shows that special sacrifices were offered on the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth of each month. These sacrifices show that these days were thought to have some peculiar significance, but, whatever that significance may have been, the evidence cited shows that it was not the same as that of the Hebrew sabbath.

CHAPTER IV

In the first place, Adapa, like Adam, had gained knowledge. This knowledge carried with it a power hitherto regarded as an attribute of divinity. It enabled Adapa to break the wing of the south wind; it tempted Adam and Eve “to become like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). As in Genesis, knowledge did not carry with it immortality. Ea, the god who had permitted Adapa to become wise, feared that he might gain immortality, as Jehovah thought that Adam might “put forth his hand and take of the tree of life and eat and live forever” (Gen. 3:22). (For Babylonian and Assyrian conceptions of the tree of life, see Figs. 291, 293.)

Ea accordingly told Adapa a falsehood when he was about to go into the presence of the supreme god, Anu, in order to prevent him from eating the food that would make him immortal; Jehovah drove man from the garden where the tree of life grew. The two accounts agree in the thought that immortality could be obtained by eating a certain kind of food. The lines at the end of the Adapa story are much broken, but they make it clear that as a punishment for what he had done, Adapa was subjected to sickness, disease, and restlessness. This corresponds to the toil inflicted upon man (Gen. 3:17-19), and the pangs of childbirth imposed upon woman (Gen. 3:16). It appears also that as Adam and Eve were clothed with skins in consequence of their deed (Gen. 3:21), so Adapa was clothed by Anu in a special clothing.

These similarities indicate that the Babylonians possessed the same general ideas of the connection of increasing knowledge, with the attributes of divinity on the one hand, and with suffering and clothing on the other, which are presented in Genesis. An increasing number of modern scholars regard the Babylonian story as an earlier form of a narrative which the Hebrew writer took and purified. Others hold that it is a somewhat degenerate form of the Biblical narrative. In any event, the Babylonian story proves the Biblical conceptions to be very ancient, and, by its contrasts to that of Genesis, it exhibits the dignity and religious value of the Biblical narrative. In the Babylonian myth, the gods, Ea and Anu, are divided and work at cross purposes; Ea tells a falsehood to accomplish his end. Genesis, while it represents Jehovah as feeling and acting in a much more human way than some parts of the Bible do, still portrays him as a consistently righteous, omnipotent God, who demands obedience, and whose punishments are the reasonable recompense for transgressions. The superiority of the Old Testament stands out in striking contrast.

2. The Adapa Myth.[368]

I

II

III

(The remainder is broken away.)

CHAPTER V

A Biblical narrative that challenges attention is that in Genesis 5, which contains the list of long-lived patriarchs who flourished before the flood. This narrative finds a striking parallel in the following tablet which tells of long-lived kings who are said to have ruled in ancient Babylonia. The beginnings of all the columns of the tablet are broken away.[370]

1. Babylonian Long-lived Kings

Column I

Column II

Column III

Column IV[374]

Column V

Column VI

This interesting document does not stand alone. Three other tablets published in the same volume[376] contain similar material, though all that would have a bearing on our present topic is too broken for connected translation. It is clear from the translation here given that the Babylonians ascribed to some early kings reigns as long, and even longer in some cases, than those ascribed to the antediluvian patriarchs in Genesis 5.

The peculiar spelling of Galumum and Zugagib in the Babylonian characters, together with the meaning of the words, shows that they are animal names. Zugagib means “scorpion” and Galumum, “lamb.” In the lines which preceded, probably similar animal names were recorded. Perhaps this expresses the idea that animals were made before men, as is stated in Gen. 1:24-26.

2. Comparison with Genesis 5.—The next name, Aripi,[377] may also have been read Adimê, and perhaps was so read by the Sumerians themselves. If it came to the Hebrews in this form they would naturally equate it with the Hebrew Adam, which means “man.”

Etana, the shepherd, is said in this list to have gone to heaven. This at once suggests the fate of Enoch, who “was not; for God took him” (Gen. 5:24). In the Sumerian the words “to heaven” are AN-ŠU, which may also be read AN-KU. If these words were not fully understood by the Hebrews, to whom Sumerian was not only a foreign language but a dead language, they might easily be mistaken for a proper name, and would in Hebrew give us Enoch.[378] Another suggestion as to the method of borrowing is also possible. Later traditions cherished the name of a king, Enmeduranki, whom they called a king of Sippar or Agade.[379] Enmeduranki means “the hero who binds together heaven and earth.” Etana is in our list of kings called a king of Kish, but in later times kings of Kish were also called kings of Agade. It is altogether probable, therefore, that the “hero who binds together heaven and earth” is simply another designation of Etana who went to heaven. The last two syllables of Enmeduranki, i. e., AN-KI, “heaven and earth,” would, if taken over into Hebrew, also give Enoch. If we assume that Etana and Enoch are the same, we may at a later point be able to determine by which of these processes the name is most likely to have come into Hebrew. In an old poem, fragments of which have been found on some broken tablets from Nineveh, the fortunes of Etana were given in detail. He is said to have been carried to heaven on the back of an eagle. If he be really the prototype of Enoch, this lends a touch of realism to the narrative.

The Sumerian name Enmenunna means “exalted hero” or “exalted man.” A natural translation of this into Semitic Babylonian about 2000 B. C. would be Mutu-elu,[380] or, in one word, amelu, and an equally natural translation of this into Hebrew would give us Enosh.

Pilikam,[381] the next name, means in Sumerian “with intelligence to build.” In Babylonian Semitic it would be literally Ina-uzni-erêšu, or, rendered in one word, ummanu, “artificer.” The Hebrew translation of this is Kenan, which means “artificer.” Melamkish gives us the Hebrew Lamech by the simple elision of the first and last consonants. All people are lazy and words sometimes wear away both at the beginning and at the end.[382]

Barsalnunna, translated into Semitic Babylonian, becomes Shitḫu-elu.[383] Seth may well be a transfer of a part of this name to Hebrew. The final radical of the first part of the name may have worn away or have been accidentally omitted.

Meskingashir is resolvable into four elements, MES-KI-INGA[384]-SHIR,[385] “the hero” or “man who is great” or “exalted.” Translate this into Semitic Babylonian and it becomes Mutu-ša-elu, which is almost exactly Methuselah.

Enmeirgan becomes when translated into Semitic Mutu-šalal-eqla,[386] and Mahalalel is a much closer transfer of the first two elements of this to Hebrew than are Sennacherib, Esar-haddon, Merodach-baladan, and Evil-merodach of the names Sin-akhi-irba, Ashur-akhi-iddina, Marduk-apal-iddin, and Amel-Marduk. Finally Dumuzi means “son of life,” or “living son,” and Jared[387] means “descendant.”

The equivalent of Noah does not appear in this list, but there is no doubt that he was Ziugiddu, otherwise called Ut-napishtim, of the Babylonian accounts of the flood.

We have then the following equivalents, four of which are Hebrew translations of Sumerian names; three, transfers into Hebrew of the whole or of parts of Semitic Babylonian equivalents of these Sumerian names, two of which are transfers to Hebrew of portions of a Sumerian original, and one of which, Noah, is still unexplained.

Of course, it may be objected that our list of kings did not furnish the originals of these patriarchs, since there are more kings than patriarchs, even though some of the names of kings have been lost by the breaking of the tablet. In this connection, however, one should remember that in 1 Chron. 1-9, many names which appear in the earlier books of the Bible are omitted, and that in Matt. 1:8, three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—are omitted from the genealogy of Christ. (Compare 2 Kings 11-15.) It appears, then, that Biblical writers did not always copy a full list.

It thus seems that the tablet translated above may be related to the text of Genesis 5 in the names of the patriarchs as well as in the matter of their ages. When we recall that the tablet was apparently written in the year 2170 B. C., it seems probable that it may be a source from which the Biblical names came.

3. Comparison with Genesis 4.

But our examination of the matter cannot stop here. In Gen. 4:16-23 there is a list of the descendants of Cain strikingly similar to the list of the descendants of Seth in Genesis 5. If the names of Adam and Abel be supplied from Gen. 4:1,2, the two lists appear as follows:

The close parallelism of these two lists of names is really greater than it appears to the English reader to be. Cain, which means “artificer,” is in Hebrew the same word as Kenan, lacking only one formative letter at the end. Irad and Jared differ in Hebrew only by the wearing away of one consonant. Mehujael is as much like Mahalalel, and Methushael as much like Methuselah as the Assyrian name of Tiglath-pileser, Tukultu-apal-esharra, is like Tiglath-pileser, while Enoch and Lamech are the same.

The importance of this likeness arises from the fact that the so-called critical scholars claim that these two lists of names are in reality the same original list as it came through two lines of tradition and was worked up differently by two writers. This view has been vigorously opposed by some conservative scholars, notably by the late Professor Green, of Princeton.[388]

Between rival critical hypotheses it is not the function of archæology to decide. It must be admitted, however, that the names of the descendants of Genesis 4 can be equated with those of our Babylonian kings, as well as those of Gen. 5. Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cain, Enoch, Mehujael, and Methushael would be derived exactly as it has been explained that the corresponding names of Genesis 5 could be derived. It only remains to explain the names Abel and Irad. It will be noticed that Abel occupies in the list a position next to Adam and Cain; Abel is also said to have been a shepherd. In the list of Babylonian kings Etana the shepherd comes in between Adimê (Aripi) and Pilikam, the equivalent of Cain. It is probable, therefore, that Etana is the king that corresponds to Abel. Etana is described in the Sumerian as “the shepherd who went to heaven,” SIBA LÙ AN-ŠU NI-IB-E-DA. If the two words SIBA LÙ became detached and misunderstood as a proper name, the s at the beginning, according to a well known phonetic law, could become h and give us the Hebrew Abel. Irad may also be ir-tu, a corruption of ZI-IR-TU, a name of the mother of Dumuzi, who may at times have been referred to as the son of ZI-IR-TU.[389] These possibilities are not proof that the names arose as suggested, but are not without weight.

If Abel arose from the traditions of Etana and Enoch did also, and if the names of Genesis 4 are derived from the list of Babylonian kings, then Etana figures twice in the fourth chapter of Genesis. If Enoch is a fragment of the name Enmeduranki, a possibility already recognized, it is not difficult to understand how Etana came into the tradition twice.

4. Comparison with the List of Berossos.

Another list of names awaits comparison. Berossos, a Babylonian priest who died about 260 B. C., compiled a list of kings who lived before the flood, and attributed to them incredibly long reigns. His work has not survived, but his list is quoted by two early Christian writers, Eusebius and Syncellus, and Hommel[390] and Sayce[391] have claimed that his names are, many of them, identical with the patriarchs of Genesis 5.

The list of Berossos is as follows:

It has long been recognized that Amēlon is the Semitic Babylonian word amelu, “man.” It is a Babylonian synonym of Mutu-elu, the equivalent of Enosh, and is also a translation of Enmenunna. Ammenon has also been recognized as the Semitic Babylonian ummanu, “artisan.” It is a translation in one word of the Sumerian Pilikam.

Daonos or Daos has, too, been seen to be the phonetic transliteration into Greek letters of the Sumerian Dumu, the first part of the name Dumuzi.

Euedorachos has also been thought to be the Sumerian Enmeduranki, whom we have recognized as another name for Etana. Four of the names of Berossos are thus easily connected with names in the new list of kings.

The fifth one, Megalaros, might be a corruption either of Mutu-shalal or of Mutu-ša-elu, and so go back ultimately either to Enmeirgan or to Meskingashir. Xisouthros is clearly the same person as Ziugiddu. He had no connection with this list of kings, but is, like Noah in Genesis 5, attached to it on account of the flood. Hommel long ago saw that Otiartes is the same as Ubara-tutu, who is said in the account of the deluge which was found at Nineveh to have been the father of Utnapishtim, the hero of the deluge.[392] Berossos has, accordingly, not only added the hero of the deluge, but has displaced one of the names from the king list in order to find a place for the father of Xisouthros.

The other names are puzzling. Poebel has suggested[393] that Alorus may be a Greek corruption of the Sumerian name Laluralim, who is said to have been a king of Nippur. An old text which contains this name[394] is accompanied by a gloss zugagib, “scorpion,”[395] and the first king in the list translated above is Zugagib. If, therefore, this suggestion is true, the name may go back to the same source as the others, after all.

Amempsinos has been thought by some to be a corruption of the well known Babylonian name Amil-Sin. There was an Amil-Sin in the first dynasty of Babylon, but why the name should be inserted here cannot at present be explained; nor has a satisfactory explanation been suggested for Alaparos.

The above discussion may be summed up in a few words. The Babylonian list of kings with which this chapter begins makes no reference to the flood, neither does the fourth chapter of Genesis. All the names in Genesis 4 may be found in the Babylonian list, though Etana seems to have been inserted twice under different names. As Genesis 5 omits Abel, it has Etana only once. All the other names of Genesis 5, except Noah, are found in the Babylonian list. Noah has been added to connect the list with the flood. The ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 correspond approximately to the general lengths of the reigns assigned to the kings in the tablet. Berossos seems to have exercised much greater freedom, inserting several names, the origin of some of which cannot now be made out. He also greatly exaggerated the lengths of the kings’ reigns.

These correspondences are simply noted. It is but a few months since the writer discovered them, and he was the first to do so. It is too early to correctly estimate their ultimate significance. It should, however, be observed that the Biblical numbers (Gen. 5) lack the gross exaggerations of Berossos, and that, if the correspondences here pointed out are real, the tradition embodied in Genesis is carried back to a time from 800 to 1000 years earlier than Moses.

CHAPTER VI

A BABYLONIAN ACCOUNT OF THE FLOOD, FROM A TABLET WRITTEN AT NINEVEH IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY B. C.[396]

Translation of the Text. Comparison with Genesis 6-9. Another Babylonian Version.

1. Translation of the Text.