THE OLD TESTAMENT AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION
The present is an era of comparative study. We no longer study
subjects by themselves, but compare them with correlated experiences
and phenomena. "In the sphere of language study we have the science of
comparative philology. Language is compared with language. By means
of this comparison we have found that there are groups of languages
closely related to one another; and, comparing these groups with one
another, we have discovered certain universal laws of language.
Comparing further the languages within each group, we ascertain the
laws common to that group. By such comparison a flood of light has
been thrown on language. We know Greek and Latin and Hebrew to-day as
our predecessors did not know them."[1] The same principle of
comparison is now applied to the study of history, of literature, of
philosophy, of ethics, and of religion, including the literature and
religion of the Hebrews. Men are laying to-day the entire Hebrew
literature, history, and religion alongside of the literatures,
histories, and religions of other {161} nations, testing them by the
same methods and applying to them the same rules.
What should be the attitude of the Christian toward this method of
study? When the science of comparative philology first asserted itself
many good Christians set themselves against it, because one of its
claims was that Hebrew is not the original language given by God to
men. Comparative philology has won its way, and Bible students are
truly grateful for the light it has shed upon sacred scripture. When
the comparative study of the Scriptures was first advocated there were
many timid souls who felt that this method of study was an attack upon
the Bible, which could only issue in such an overturning of belief that
the Church would remain helpless with a worthless Bible. Hence they
set themselves with all their might against the new study as an enemy
of Christianity. Is this the proper attitude? In the first place, it
is well to remember that the Bible has withstood all attacks for
thousands of years. Its great river of truth has flowed serenely on,
watering the whole earth with its life-giving streams, and refusing to
be dammed up by any foe. Surely, history teaches that there need be no
fear that any new method of study will bring about an end of the
Bible's reign. On the other hand, history teaches the folly of
resisting the progress of science along any line of investigation.
{162} True science will win its way just as surely as the teaching of
the Bible will win its way into the hearts of men. Hence it would seem
the part of wisdom to encourage rather than to discourage the efforts
of the comparative student of the Old Testament.
As a matter of fact, we cannot do anything else unless we would
stultify ourselves. We have said to the adherents of every other
religion: "You say your sacred books are divine, prove it; lay your
books open before the jury of the world, let the critics scrutinize
them, analyze them, criticize them, according to the canons of modern
criticism by which they criticize all books." And can we refuse to
open our Bible before the jury of the world and bid it scrutinize,
analyze, and criticize it according to the same canons which it applies
to the Veda, the Koran, and other so-called holy books? Would such an
attitude be fair? If we believe that the Bible is different from the
sacred books of other nations, that it stands on a far higher plane,
unique, needing no concealment and no bolstering up with traditions and
doctrines--if that is our faith, then let us lay it down open before
the world and challenge men to read it, study it, and compare it with
all the sacred literatures of the world. The man who really believes
in the inspiration of the Bible ought not to be afraid of such a test.
He may rest assured {163} that the comparative study of biblical
literature and biblical religion will prove one of the things that work
together for good to all those who have a living faith in God.
An exhaustive discussion of the subject of this chapter would involve a
study of all the great historical religions, known better to-day than
ever before, and a comparison of them with the religion of the Old
Testament. This, however, could not be done satisfactorily within the
limits of a single chapter. It seems, therefore, advisable to confine
the investigation to the religious beliefs, practices, and institutions
of the nations with whom the Hebrews came into more or less close
contact, such as the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians. Political
contact, which was common between these nations and the Hebrews, might
furnish occasions for exerting influence in the realms of religion,
law, and other elements of civilization. "When alien races and diverse
faiths confronted each other it might not always be the cause of war,
but it was always the occasion of psychical conflict."[2] Since the
knowledge of the religions of the nations named has been supplied very
largely through archaeological labors, this inquiry is simply one phase
of the broader question as to the bearing of archaeology upon the Old
Testament; more especially, the bearing of the archaeological material
of a religious and ethical nature {164} upon the uniqueness and
permanent significance of the Old Testament religion.
The importance of this study is suggested in the following quotation
from a prominent Assyriologist, Hugo Winckler: "We come in the end to
this, that we can distinguish only two views of the world which the
human race has known in its historical development: the old Babylonian,
and the modern empirical naturalistic, which is still in process of
development and is yet struggling with the old one in many departments
of life."[3] To avoid misunderstanding respecting the extent of the
Babylonian influence, he adds, "The view of the world and religion are
one for the ancient Oriental."[3] In this statement Winckler robs the
Old Testament religion of all originality; he considers it simply a
natural development of the Babylonian religion. Friedrich Delitzsch,
in his lectures on "Babel and Bible,"[4] expresses the same idea in a
slightly modified form and attempts to show the predominance of
Babylonian thought in the Hebrew conception of the origin of the world,
the Fall, the Flood, life after death, angels, demons, the devil, the
Sabbath, a large part of the sacrificial cult, the directions
concerning the priesthood, the name and worship of Jehovah, and even in
the monotheistic conception of Deity. How much truth is there in these
claims? Or, to put the question in another form, If the religious
{165} ideas expressed in the Old Testament have parallels among nations
commonly called heathen, and if these extra-biblical ideas cannot be
explained as dependent on the Bible, does it follow that the ideas of
the Bible are appropriated from these nations, and if so, what becomes
of the uniqueness, the sacredness, the inspiration of the Old
Testament? In order to answer the question adequately it is necessary
to consider in detail the most important phases of the religious ideas
of the Hebrews on the one hand, and of the nations with whom the
Hebrews came in contact on the other.
Fundamental to all religious thinking is the conception of Deity. The
origin of the Babylonian conception of Deity, which shows more striking
similarities to the ideas of the Old Testament than do the conceptions
of the other nations above mentioned, belongs to a period of which
little or nothing is known. But there are indications that a
fundamental aspect of the earliest religion of the country was animism,
that is, the belief that every object was possessed and animated by a
spirit. "Life was the only force known to man which explained motion,
and, conversely, motion was the sign and manifestation of life. The
arrow which sped through the air, or the rock which fell from the
cliff, did so in virtue of their possessing life, or because the motive
force of {166} life lay in some way or other behind them. The stars,
which slowly moved through the sky, and the sun, which rose and set day
by day, were living beings. It was life which gave them the power of
movement as it gave the power of movement to man himself, and the
animals by whom he was surrounded."[5] Besides this belief in animism,
the Babylonian religion shows evidences of a belief in ghosts that were
related to the world of the dead. These ghosts were thought to
exercise an evil influence upon men and could be cast out only by the
use of incantations.
But, while these elements belonged to the early religion, Babylonian
religion as it actually meets us even in the earliest inscriptions has
reached a higher stage of development. There appear many local
deities; every center of human habitation had its special patron deity;
for example, Babylon was the city of Marduk; Nippur, of Enlil; Ur, of
Sin; Sippara, of Shamash; Cuthah, of Nergal; Asshur, of Ashur; etc.
These deities are usually associated with natural phenomena; foremost
among them stand the sun and the moon; but by the side of these many
other natural objects or forces were personified and deified.
It is probable that in the beginning, as the result of limited
observation and speculation, the number of gods in the Babylonian
pantheon was relatively small. However, in the course of time, {167}
they became greatly multiplied as the result of a wider observation of
the phenomena of nature, political changes, and theological
speculation. Over against this tendency to multiply deities there
shows itself, in the course of the centuries, a tendency to diminish
the number of gods, and in the end comparatively few remain, until in
the late Babylonian period the worship seems to have been confined
chiefly to Marduk, Nabu, Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar. Some of the great
thinkers of Babylonia seem to have gone even so far as to consider the
various deities manifestation of the one god Marduk. There is in
existence a tablet of the Neo-Babylonian period which states that
Marduk is called Ninib as the possessor of power, Nergal as lord of
battle, Bel as possessor of dominion, Nabu as lord of business, Sin as
the illuminator of the night, Shamash as the lord of right, Addu as the
lord of rain, etc.[6] It is seen, then, that monotheistic tendencies
are not absent from the Babylonian religion. But they never go beyond
the realm of speculation. "The Babylonians, with all their wonderful
gifts, were never able to conceive of one god, of one god alone, of one
god whose very existence makes logically impossible the existence of
any other deity. Monotheism transcends the spiritual grasp of the
Babylonian mind."[7] In the words of Delitzsch, "Notwithstanding all
this, however, and despite {168} the fact that many liberal and
enlightened minds openly advocated the doctrine that Nergal and Nebo,
that the moon-god and the sun-god, the god of thunder, Ramman, and all
the rest of the Babylonian pantheon, were one in Marduk, the god of
light, still polytheism, gross polytheism, remained for three thousand
years the Babylonian state religion--a sad and significant warning
against the indolence of men and races in matters of religion, and
against the colossal power which may be acquired by a strongly
organized priesthood based upon it."[8]
Even the most spiritual expressions of the Babylonian religion, the
so-called penitential psalms, bear witness to the fact that the writers
continued to worship many deities. In one of the most spiritual of
these psalms, the psalmist prays:
That the heart anger of my lord be appeased,
A god unknown to me be appeased,
A goddess unknown to me be appeased,
A known and unknown god be appeased,
A known and unknown goddess be appeased,
That the heart of my god be appeased,
The heart of my goddess be appeased,
God and goddess, known and unknown, be appeased.[9]
Some of the hymns and prayers addressed to certain deities read almost
as if the authors were monotheists. But this is due simply to the fact
that just at the time they are interested in the power or {169}
splendor or favor of a specific deity. Again and again the fact that
they believe in the existence of other deities, and in their duty to
pay homage to different deities, crops out. At no period of the
religious history of Babylonia is there any indication of a clear and
well-defined monotheism.
In Egypt also a tendency toward monotheism manifested itself,
especially during the reign of Amenophis IV, soon after B.C. 1400,[10]
that is, during the period when the Hebrews were in Egypt. He tried to
do away with the worship of many deities and to establish as the one
supreme deity the orb of the sun; but after the death of Amenophis, who
was considered a heretic, the new cult disappeared without exerting any
noticeable influence on Egyptian religion. There certainly is no
evidence that either the Babylonian or the Egyptian monotheistic
tendencies influenced in any direct way the development of Israel's
religion.
Turning now to the religion of the Old Testament, we soon discover that
Hebrew religion, including the conception of Deity, passed through
various stages of development, the earliest of these belonging to the
period before Moses. The first thing to be noted about this period is
that, in spite of the close relation of the ancient Hebrews with
Babylon, the early Hebrew conception of Deity does not seem to have
been influenced in any marked manner by that of Babylonia; nor {170} is
there any indication of Egyptian influence. On the other hand, the
oldest Hebrew conceptions show marked similarities with the religion of
their nomadic neighbors, as reflected, for example, in the oldest
traditions of the Arab tribes. This does not mean that an indirect
influence may not have been exerted by Babylon; indeed, the absence of
such influence would be very strange in view of the fact that,
according to Hebrew tradition, the truth of which cannot be doubted,
the ancestors of the Hebrews came from Babylonia, from the city of Ur,
the principal center of the worship of the Babylonian moon-god, Sin.
The results of modern investigations into the nature of early Hebrew
religion may be briefly stated as follows: Like the early Babylonian
religion, the religion of Israel passed through a stage of animism. In
one form this is the belief in the activity of the spirits of recently
deceased relatives. But this becomes a religion only when it leads to
the worship of the departed, that is, ancestor worship, of which there
is no definite indication in the biblical material at our command. But
there is a form of animism of which there are traces in Israel as in
Babylonia, namely, the worship of spirits that were believed to be the
inhabitants and possessors of certain objects and places, like trees,
stones, springs, which thereby assumed a sacred character. To this
form of {171} religion the name "polydemonism," which means the worship
of many demons, is ordinarily given. Demon, however, is to be
understood here, not in the sense of evil spirit, but simply a divine
being of an inferior order. As illustrations of this belief, attention
may be called to the sacred stone, Bethel, which gave the locality its
name, "House of God" (Gen. 28. 19), or to the sacred oracular tree at
Shechem (Gen. 12. 6; Deut. 11. 30), or to the sacred wells at Kadesh
(Gen. 14. 7) and Beersheba (Gen. 21. 28-33). In general, it may be
said that during the pre-Mosaic period the religion of Israel, whatever
may have been true of isolated individuals, was not essentially
different from the religious conceptions of the people with which we
have become better acquainted through modern exploration and
excavation.[11]
Another and very different conception appears from the time of the
exodus on. The most striking feature of this new conception is that
the Israelites now worship one God, whom they consider their own
peculiar Deity, while they look upon themselves as his own peculiar
people. True, the earlier conceptions did not disappear entirely or
immediately; but for the religious leaders there was but one God who
had a right to demand Israel's loyalty. Jehovah, or Yahweh, was the
name of this God, and the religious watchword was, "Jehovah, the God of
Israel; Israel the people {172} of Jehovah." Now archeology has shown
the name "Yahweh" to have been used as a divine name long before the
time of the exodus; but archaeology has also shown that the conception
of the nature and character of Yahweh held by the religious leaders of
the Hebrews from the time of Moses on is peculiar to them. Says R. W.
Rogers, "There can, therefore, be no escape from the conclusion that
the divine name 'Yahweh' is not a peculiar possession of the
Hebrews."[12] Then he continues: "At first sight this may seem like a
startling robbery of Israel, this taking away from her the divine name
'Yahweh' as an exclusive possession, but it is not so. Yahweh himself
is not taken away: he remains the priceless possession, the chief glory
of Israel. It is only the name that is shown to be widespread. And
the name matters little. The great question is, What does this name
convey? What is its theological content? The name came to Israel from
the outside; but into that vessel a long line of prophets from Moses
onward poured such a flood of attributes as never a priest in all
western Asia from Babylonia to the sea ever dreamed of in his highest
moments of spiritual insight. In this name and through Israel's
history God chose to reveal himself to Israel, and by Israel to the
world. Therein lies the supreme and lonesome superiority of Israel
over Babylonia."[13]
{173}
Archaeology has revealed the pantheon of Babylonia and Assyria; the
inscriptions have also set in a clear light the nature and character of
the gods as conceived by their worshipers. For example, the gods are
looked upon as a part of the process of creation, as may be seen from
the opening lines of the story of Creation:[14]
When no one of the gods had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were fixed.
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven.
An idea of the character of these deities may be gathered from the
description of a heavenly banquet scene in the same poem:
They made ready the feast, at the banquet [they sat],
They ate bread, they mingled the wine.
The sweet drink made them drunken ...
By drinking they were drunken, their bodies were filled.
They shouted aloud, their heart was exalted,
Then for Marduk, their avenger, did they decree destiny.
Certainly, not all the religious thinkers of Babylonia held these low
conceptions. In some of their prayers and hymns they rise to lofty
spiritual and ethical conceptions which compare quite favorably with
expressions found in the Old Testament. In a hymn addressed to
Shamash, the sun-god, are found these lines:
Who plans evil--his horn thou dost destroy,
Whoever in fixing boundaries annuls rights.
The unjust judge thou restrainest with force.
{174}
Whoever accepts a bribe, who does not judge justly--on him
thou imposest sin.
But he who does not accept a bribe, who has a care for the
oppressed,
To him Shamash is gracious, his life he prolongs.
The judge who renders a just decision
Shall end in a palace, the place of princes shall be his dwelling.
* * * * *
The seed of those who act unjustly shall not flourish.
What their mouth declares in thy presence
Thou shalt burn it up, what they purpose wilt thou annul.
Thou knowest their transgressions; the declaration of the
wicked thou dost cast aside.
Every one wherever he may be is in thy care.
Thou directest their judgments, the imprisoned dost thou
liberate.
Thou hearest, O Shamash, petition, prayer, and appeal,
Humility, prostration, petitioning, and reverence.
With loud voice the unfortunate one cries to thee.
The weak, the exhausted, the oppressed, the lowly,
Mother, wife, maid appeal to thee,
He who is removed from his family, he that dwelleth far from
his city.[15]
Far be it from the writer to rob the religion of Babylonia of any of
its glory. Nevertheless, he ventures to assert without any fear of
contradiction that we may search the pantheon of Babylon, from one end
to the other, and we shall not find one god who in nature and character
can compare with the Jehovah of Israel as proclaimed by the great
prophets and glorified by the sweet singers of the nation, a God
"merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in loving-kindness
and truth." We may well speak of a "great gulf, {175} which is fixed
between primitive Semitic conceptions of God and the noble spiritual
views of him set forth under divine illumination by Isaiah."[16] It is
due to this fundamental difference in the conception of the nature and
character of Deity that the religion of Israel became "a living and
ethical power, growing and increasing until Jesus, greatest of the
prophets, completed the message of his predecessors," and Christianity
was born.
From the conception of Deity we may pass to a brief consideration of
religious institutions and beliefs. One of the most important results
of recent archaeological discoveries has been to show that many of the
religious rites, customs, and institutions of Babylonia and Assyria, as
also of Egypt, resemble closely those assigned in the Old Testament to
the Hebrews. This cannot appear strange when we remember that Israel
was a branch of the great Semitic race, which was, at the time of its
separation from the common stock, in possession of many of the common
Semitic notions and practices. It would have been impossible to rid
the Israelite consciousness of all of these; therefore the religious
leaders of the Hebrews took the better way of retaining the familiar
forms and pouring into them a new, higher, and more spiritual
significance.
One of the earliest religious institutions recognized in the Old
Testament is the Sabbath. The {176} very fact that it is mentioned in
the story of creation shows that, whatever the reason for its
observance among the Hebrews, it was recognized as a very ancient
institution. Has archaeology thrown any light on the origin of the
Sabbath day?[17] In his first lecture on "Babel and Bible," Delitzsch
answers the question in these words: "There can therefore be scarcely
the shadow of a doubt that in the last resort we are indebted to this
ancient nation on the banks of the Euphrates and the Tigris for the
plenitude of blessings that flows from our day of Sabbath, or Sunday,
rest."[18] This statement was soon criticized, because it seemed to
give too much credit to the Babylonians, and Delitzsch later modified
the statement and claimed, simply, that the Hebrew Sabbath ultimately
is rooted in a Babylonian institution.[19] No exception can be taken
to this putting of the claim.
What are the facts in the case? (1) The Babylonians observed in a
peculiar way the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth
days of the month, that is, the days on which the moon entered a new
phase. They also observed the nineteenth day of the month, which was
the forty-ninth day from the beginning of the preceding month. These
days were considered unlucky days, on which certain actions had to be
avoided, at least by important personages, like the king, {177} priest,
and physician. The prohibition reads: "The shepherd (king) of the
great nations shall not eat roasted nor smoked meat, not change his
garment, not put on white raiment, not offer sacrifice; the king shall
not mount his chariot, as ruler not pronounce judgment; the priest
shall not give oracles in the secret place; the physician shall not lay
his hand on the sick, the day being inauspicious for any affair
whatever." The Babylonians evidently observed these days by at least
partial cessation of work, because nothing would prosper anyway on
those days. In contrast, it may be well to notice that in the Sabbath
observance among the early Hebrews the humanitarian element played a
prominent part. (2) The name _Sha-bat-tu_ has been found in the
inscriptions as an interpretation of the phrase, _um nuh libbi_, which
means, a day for appeasing the heart (of the deity). It would seem,
therefore, that the Babylonian Sabbath was intended to be a day of
atonement or supplication, which might imply cessation of ordinary
labor, especially since the word _Sha-bat-tu_ may be identical in
meaning with _gamaru_, to complete or finish, which leads naturally to
the idea of rest, because the work is completed. (3) There is no
definite evidence that the five days mentioned were called
_Sha-bat-tu_; the name is given rather to the fifteenth day of the
month, which is the day of the full moon.
{178}
In the light of these facts it is not improbable that there is some
connection between the Hebrew Sabbath and certain special days among
the Babylonians; but, as in other cases, the Hebrews have given to the
adopted institution a new significance. Some of the changes introduced
by the Hebrews are: (a) The Hebrews observed every seventh day without
regard for the month or the year. The Babylonians observed the
seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of each
month, (b) The motive underlying the observance among the two people
differs. The earliest Hebrew legislation (Exod. 23. 12) would seem to
indicate that humanitarian considerations are responsible for Sabbath
observance, not religious superstition, (c) The Sabbath law of the
Hebrews was binding on all. According to our present knowledge, among
the Babylonians only the leaders appear to have been affected.
The Babylonians, Egyptians, and other ancient peoples had in addition
to the Sabbath numerous other festivals, and it is not improbable that
some of the Hebrew festivals are connected with these, though the exact
relation is not yet determined.
Archaeology has thrown much light on the complicated ceremonial system
of the Old Testament, though it is an exaggeration to say that, "if we
want to trace the origin of the late Jewish ceremonial of the Priest
Code, we must look for {179} it in the cuneiform ritual texts of the
Babylonians."[20] Attention may be called here to a few of the more
marked similarities between the Hebrew and Babylonian systems.[21] (1)
The Babylonian temple closely resembled the temple of Solomon. Both
had two courts, chambers for the priests, the sanctuary, and the Holy
of holies. Externally, both were mere rectangular boxes, without much
architectural beauty or variety of design. It was only in the
possession of a tower that the Babylonian temple differed from the
Hebrew, a difference due to a difference in the conception of Deity.
The temples agreed even in the details of their furniture: the two
altars of the Babylonian sanctuary are found again in the temple of
Jerusalem; so also the mercy seat and the table of showbread. The
bronze sea of Solomon was modeled after a Babylonian original. The
twin pillars, which Solomon erected in the porch of the temple, have
their counterparts in Babylonian sanctuaries. Even the sacred ark
seems to have had a Babylonian origin, though some would trace it to
Egypt. (2) Every great sanctuary had its chief priest. Under him was
a large number of subordinate priests and temple ministers, such as
sacrificers, pourers of libations, anointers with oil, bakers,
chanters, wailers, etc. Connected with the sanctuaries were also the
prophets, augurs, soothsayers, necromancers, etc. {180} Though not all
these classes of religious workers are found in connection with the
Jewish sanctuaries, the chief priest and his subordinates are found
there as well as in Babylon. (3) Similarities in the details of the
sacrificial system may be noted. Libations were poured out before the
deities, consisting originally, probably, of pure water, to which was
subsequently added wine, made either from the palm or the vine. All
the first-fruits of the cultivated land were offered to the god; milk
and butter and oil, dates and vegetables were given in abundance. So
too were spices and incense, brought from the southern coast of Arabia,
the corn that was grown in the fields, garlic and other herbs from the
garden, and honey from the hive. Annual sacrifices were not forgotten.
Oxen and calves, sheep and lambs, goats and kids, fish and certain
kinds of birds, were slain upon the altar. There are traces of human
sacrifice, but, as among the Hebrews, the practice disappeared at an
early date. "Babylonia," says Sayce, "was the inventor of the
tithe,"[22] which was paid by all classes, even the king. One of the
last acts recorded of the crown prince, Belshazzar, is the payment of a
tithe, forty-seven shekels in amount, due from his sister to the temple
of the sun-god at Sippara. The daily sacrifice was a fixed custom.
Several of the technical terms of the Old Testament are {181} found
also in Assyrian. For example: _torah_, law, has its counterpart in
the Assyrian _tertu_; the biblical _kipper_, atonement, is the Assyrian
_kuppuru_; _korban_, gift or offering, is the Assyrian _kurbannu_. The
names for animal sacrifice, _zibu_, for meal offering, _manitu_, and
for freewill offering, _nidbu_, all are found in their Hebrew forms in
the Old Testament. As in the Hebrew legislation, a distinction is made
between the offerings of the rich and the poor, and the sacrificial
animal was to be without blemish. The Babylonian priest retained
certain parts for himself, which was also the custom among the Hebrews
(Deut. 18. 3), though the parts retained are not the same in the two
cases. A ritual tablet shows that Babylonians sprinkled the blood of
the lamb that was killed at the gate of the palace on the lintels, on
the figures flanking the entrances, and on the doorposts to the right
and the left, which has its parallel in the Hebrew passover ceremony.
These illustrations, which by no means exhaust the list, reveal close
similarities between the Hebrew ceremonial and that of the inhabitants
of the Euphrates-Tigris valley, and the more we know of the Babylonian
ritual, the more extensive and striking these resemblances become.
They both start from the same principles and agree in many of their
details. Between them, however, lies that deep gulf which separates
the religion of {182} Israel from that of Babylonia as a whole. The
one is monotheistic, the other polytheistic. Upon the basis of this
fundamental difference the religious leaders of Israel gave to the
similar forms adopted from other nations a new and deeper meaning and
significance.
Like the Hebrew religion, the religion of Babylonia has its guardian
angels.[23] The Babylonian rulers stood in need of hosts of messengers
to bear their behests into all quarters of their dominions. In a
similar manner, it was thought, the gods needed their heavenly hosts to
carry out their commissions. These angels are represented under
various forms, but all of them are equipped with wings, so as to be
able to carry upon the winds of heaven the commands of the gods to the
children of men. Sometimes they are represented with eagles' heads,
perhaps to indicate that they possess the keenness of vision and the
rapidity of flight of an eagle; sometimes they have human countenances
to denote their human intelligence. Frequently they appear as hybrid
figures, with the body of a lion or bull, the wings of an eagle, and
the head of a man, symbolizing strength, swiftness, and intelligence.
The duties of these angels are manifold. Those placed at the entrances
of palaces or temples are to guard those entrances. The peculiar
relations of angels to men are suggested, for example, by {183} a
letter of a Babylonian officer to the queen mother. He writes: "Mother
of the king, my lady, be comforted. Bel's and Nabu's angel of mercy
attends on the king of the land, my lord." A letter addressed to
Esarhaddon contains these words: "May the great gods send a guardian of
salvation and life to stand by the king my lord." And Nabopolassar,
the founder of the Chaldean empire, and father of Nebuchadrezzar,
writes: "To lordship over land and people, Marduk called me. He sent a
cherub of mercy to attend on me, and everything I undertook he aided."
Alongside of these guardian angels there appear evil spirits and
demons. "These demons were everywhere: they lurked in every corner,
watching for their prey. The city streets knew their malevolent
presence, the rivers, the seas, the tops of the mountains. They
appeared sometimes as serpents gliding noiselessly upon their victims;
as birds, horrid of mien, flying resistlessly to destroy or afflict; as
beings in human form, grotesque, malformed, awe-inspiring through their
hideousness. To these demons all sorts of misfortunes were ascribed:
toothache, headache, broken bones, raging fever, outbursts of anger, of
jealousy. Did a man lie wasting of disease and torn of pain, a demon
was thought to be within him, the disease being but a manifestation of
his malevolence. There could be no return of the precious boon of
{184} good health until the demon was exorcised, and it was to the
exorcising of demons that so large, so disproportionate a part of the
religious literature of Babylon and Nineveh was devoted."[24]
Sometimes demons are referred to in a manner which shows that the
conception in Job 1. 6ff., Zech. 3. 1ff., of the Adversary, or the
Satan, is closely related to the Babylonian conception of a demon as
accuser, persecutor, or oppressor.
The vision of the Old Testament is largely confined to this world.
There is little hope for a man after he passes away from this earth.
Indeed, there are some passages which would seem to imply the thought
that with death existence came entirely to an end. Compare, for
example, Psa. 39.13:
Oh, spare me, that I may recover strength
Before I go hence, and be no more;
or Job 14. 7-12:
For there is hope of a tree,
If it be cut down, that it will sprout again,
And that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Though the root thereof wax old in the earth,
And the stock thereof die in the ground;
Yet through the scent of water it will bud,
And put forth boughs like a plant.
But man dieth, and is laid low;
Yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
As the waters fail from the sea,
And the river wasteth and drieth up;
So man lieth down and riseth not:
Till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake,
Nor be roused out of their sleep.
{185} These are expressions of deepest despondency and despair over a
life soon ended, never to be lived again here upon earth.
However, by far the greatest number of Old Testament passages dealing
with the subject express a belief in a continuous existence after death
in Sheol. Sheol is the place of departed personalities; the
generations of one's forefathers are there: he who dies is gathered
unto his fathers; the tribal divisions of one's race are there: the
dead is gathered unto his people; and if his descendants have died
before him, they are there, and he goes down to them, as Jacob to his
son (Gen. 37. 35: "For I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning"),
and David to his child (2 Sam. 12. 23: "I shall go to him, and he shall
not return to me").
There are only a few passages which go beyond this, expressing a hope
of immortality or a resurrection. There is, for example, the hope
expressed in Psa. 16. 8-11:
I have set Jehovah always before me:
Because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth:
My flesh also shall dwell in safety.
For thou will not leave my soul to Sheol;
Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.
Thou wilt show me the path of life:
In thy presence is fullness of joy;
In thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.
The hope expressed here is not a hope of a resurrection, but, rather, a
hope that the psalmist will {186} be delivered from death and live in
fellowship with God forevermore. There are other passages which
recognize the impossibility of escaping death, but express a hope that
there will be a resurrection from death. The most definite Old
Testament teaching of a resurrection is in Dan. 12. 2, "And many of
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
These lofty hopes are peculiar to Israel. But Israel's conception of
Sheol shows very striking resemblances with the Babylonian conception.
The descriptions found in Job, in the Psalms, in Isaiah, in Ezekiel and
elsewhere, are hardly to be distinguished from those found in
Babylonian literature. The opening lines of Ishtar's descent into
Sheol read:
To the land from which there is no return, the home of darkness,
Ishtar, the daughter of Sin, turned her mind,
Yea, the daughter of Sin set her mind to go;
To the house of gloom, the dwelling of Irkalla,
To the house from which those who enter depart not,
The road from whose path there is no return;
To the house where they who enter are deprived of light;
A place where dust is their nourishment, clay their food;
The light they behold not, in thick darkness they dwell;
They are clad like bats in a garb of wings;
On door and bolt the dust is laid.
Compare with this Job 10. 21, 22:
Before I go, whence I shall not return,
To the land of darkness, yea deepest darkness,
{187}
The land dark as midnight,
Of deepest darkness without any order,
And where the light is as midnight;
or Job 7. 9, 10:
He that goeth down to Sheol shall come up no more,
He shall return no more to his house,
Neither shall his place know him any more.
Other similarities may be noted: the Hebrew Sheol, like the Babylonian,
was deep down in the earth; it is pictured as a cavern; silence reigns
supreme, etc. There is but one explanation for these similarities:
When the ancestors of the Hebrews left their homes in the Euphrates
valley they carried with them the traditions, beliefs, and customs
current in that district. Under new surroundings, and especially under
the influence of their higher religion, new features were added and old
conceptions were transformed. But these changes were not able to
obscure entirely the character impressed upon the older beliefs by
contact with Babylon.
Striking similarities are found also between the legal systems of
Babylonia and Israel. In the light of recent discoveries the study of
ancient law begins to-day, not with the legal systems of Rome, or of
Greece, or of Israel, but with the laws of early Babylonia. Of the
beginning of the Babylonian legal system we know nothing except a few
popular traditions, which trace it back to some deity. It is clear,
however, that long {188} centuries before the time of Moses or Minos or
Romulus the people living in the lower Euphrates-Tigris valley
developed legal codes of a high and complex order. In the legal phrase
books of the later scribes there have been preserved seven so-called
Sumerian family laws, written in the language of the people occupying
the southern part of the Euphrates-Tigris valley before it came under
the sway of the Semites. These laws, in theme and literary form
resembling later Babylonian and early Hebrew laws, were probably in
existence in the fourth millennium B.C.; some of them may go even
farther back.
By far the most important Babylonian legal code now known is the
so-called Code of Hammurabi.[25] Hammurabi was known to Assyriologists
long before the finding of his legal code. He reigned in Babylon about
B.C. 2000, was the sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty, and the
first permanently to unite the numerous small city states under one
ruler. He may, therefore, be called the founder of the Babylonian
empire. From his numerous letters and inscriptions, as also from other
documents coming from the same period, he was known as a great
conqueror and statesman, interested in the highest welfare of his
people, and persistently laboring for the improvement of their
conditions. The Bible student has a special interest in Hammurabi,
however, because in all {189} probability he is no other than the
Amraphel of Gen. 14. 1.
The monument on which the code is engraved was found during the winter
1901-1902 by a French excavator in the acropolis of Susa, the scene of
the book of Esther. It is a block of black diorite, about eight feet
in height. When found it was in three pieces, which, however, were
easily joined. On the obverse is a bas relief representing the king as
receiving the ruler's staff and ring from the sun-god Shamash, "the
judge of heaven and earth." Then follow on the obverse sixteen columns
of writing, containing 1,114 lines. There were five more columns on
this side, but they were erased and the stone repolished, probably by
the Elamite conqueror who carried the monument to Susa. On the reverse
are twenty-eight columns with more than 2,500 lines of inscription.
The English Assyriologist, C. H. W. Johns, estimates that originally
the inscription contained forty-nine columns, 4,000 lines, and about
8,000 words. About 800 lines are taken up by the prologue and
epilogue, setting forth the king's titles, his glory, the extent of his
rule, his care for his subjects, and devotion to his gods. The
inscription opens with a statement of his call by the gods to be the
ruler of Babylon: "When the lofty Anu, king of the Anunaki, and Bel,
lord of heaven and earth, he who determines the destiny {190} of the
land, committed the rule of all mankind to Marduk, the chief son of Ea;
when they made him great among the Igigi; when they pronounced the
lofty name of Babylon, when they made it famous among the quarters of
the world, and in its midst established an everlasting kingdom, whose
foundations were firm as heaven and earth--at that time, Ami and Bel
called me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, the worshiper of the gods, to
cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the
evil, to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak, to go forth like
the sun over the blackhead race, to enlighten the land and to further
the welfare of the people."
According to the closing statement of the prologue he faithfully
executed this commission: "When Marduk sent me to rule the people and
to bring help to the country, I established law and justice in the land
and promoted the welfare of the people" (V. 14-21). To better care for
the welfare of the people he set up the code of laws. In column XLI, a
part of the epilogue, he says: "Let any oppressed man, who has a cause,
come before my image as king of righteousness! Let him read the
inscription on my monument! Let him give heed to my weighty words!
And may my monument enlighten him as to his cause and may he understand
his case! May he set his heart at ease!" (1-19.) He recognizes the
value {191} of his law code and advises his successors on the throne to
make good use of it: "In the days that are yet to come, for all future
time, may the king who is in the land observe the words of
righteousness which I have written upon my monument! May he not alter
the judgments of the land which I have pronounced, or the decisions of
the country which I have rendered! May he not efface my statues! If
that man have wisdom, if he wish to give his land good government, let
him give attention to the words which I have written upon my monument!
And may this monument enlighten him as to procedure and administration,
the judgments which I have pronounced, and the judgments which I have
rendered for the land! And let him rightly rule his blackhead people;
let him pronounce judgments for them and render for them decisions!
Let him root out the wicked and evildoer from the land! Let him
promote the welfare of his people!" (59-94.)
The epilogue closes with a blessing upon the king who will observe the
laws, and curses upon him who will disregard or alter them (XLII-XLIV).
The pronouncement of blessings is very brief; the curses are reiterated
in various forms, and numerous gods and goddesses are appealed to by
name to destroy the evildoer and his reign. The section begins (XLII,
2-49): "If that man pay attention to my words which I have written
{192} upon my monument, do not efface my judgments, do not overrule my
words, and do not alter my statues, then will Shamash prolong that
man's reign, as he has mine, who am king of righteousness, that he may
rule his people in righteousness." It continues: "If that man do not
pay attention to my words which I have written upon my monument; if he
forget my curses and do not fear the curse of god; if he abolish the
judgments which I have formulated, overrule my words, alter my statues,
efface my name written thereon and write his own name; on account of
these curses commission another to do so--as for that man, be he king
or lord, or priestking or commoner, whoever he may be, may the great
god, the father of the gods, who has ordained my reign, take from him
the glory of his sovereignty, may he break his scepter and curse his
fate!"
Between the prologue and the epilogue is the law code proper.
Originally there appear to have been 282 separate enactments (this is
the estimate of the French Assyriologist, Father Scheil, who first
edited the code, and is commonly accepted as correct); of these 66-99
are now missing as a result of the erasure to which reference has been
made. The code covers a variety of topics. Laws dealing with the same
subject are ordinarily grouped together; sometimes the principle of
arrangement is the class or profession concerned. {193} A brief
outline will give at least a general notion of its contents: 1, 2,
False accusation of a crime; 3, 4, False witness and bribery; 5,
Alteration of judgment by a judge; 6-8, Theft; 9-13, Concealing of
stolen property; 14, Kidnapping; 15-20, Assisting in the escape of
slaves; 21-25, Burglary and brigandage; 26-41, Rights and duties of
officers, constables, and taxgatherers; 42-52, Renting of fields for
cultivation; 53-56, Care of dykes and canals; 57, 58, Shepherds
allowing their sheep to pasture on the fields of another; 59, Unlawful
cutting down of trees; 60-65, Duties of gardeners; 66-99, (lost);
100-107, Relation of merchants to their agents; 108-111, Regulations
concerning wine-sellers, always women. It may be interesting to note
that with them the law was very severe. Of the three crimes
condemned--minor crimes at that--one is to be punished by throwing the
wine-seller into the water, the second by putting her to death, the
third by burning her. 112, Loss of goods intrusted for transportation;
113-119, Securing settlement for debts; 120-126, Liability for
deposits; 127, Slander; 128, Marriage contract; 129-132, Adultery,
rape, and suspected unchastity; 133-143, Separation and divorce;
144-149, Concubines; 150-152, Marriage dowry; 153, Murder of husband
for the sake of another; 154-158, Illegitimate sexual intercourse;
159-161, Breach of promise; 162-164, Disposition of dowry after the
{194} death of the wife; 165-177, Inheritance of sons in polygamous
relations; 178-182, Inheritance of priestesses; 183, 184, Inheritance
of daughters of concubines; 185-194, Treatment of adopted children;
195-214, Offenses against limb and life; 215-225, Operations by doctors
and veterinary surgeons. For example, "If a physician cause a man a
severe wound with a bronze lancet and cause the man's death, or, in
opening an abscess of a man with a bronze lancet, destroy the man's
eye, they shall cut off his fingers" (218). 226, 227, Unlawful
branding of slaves; 228-233, Liability of negligent builders. For
example, "If a builder build a house for a man, and do not make its
construction firm, and the house which he has built collapse and cause
the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to
death" (229). 234-252, Hired animals--the injuries they cause or
suffer; 253-277, Rights and duties of workmen; 278-282, Selling and
treatment of slaves. In addition to this very complete code there is a
vast amount of information from both early and late periods concerning
legal practices, to be gathered from the thousands of tablets recording
business and legal transactions of various sorts: Marriage and dowry
contracts, partnership agreements, records of debts and promissory
notes, leases of land, houses, or slaves; records of sales of all kinds
of property, mortgages, documents {195} granting the power of attorney;
concerning adoption, divorce, bankruptcy, inheritance--in short, almost
every imaginable kind of contract.
Over against this complex legal system of Babylonia we may place the
legal literature of the Hebrews.[26] Anyone who approaches the study
of Hebrew laws is met by two difficulties. In the first place, the
legal portions do not form separate books, but are embodied in writings
belonging to other kinds of literature; in the second place, there is a
lack of system in the arrangement of the laws. The abrupt transitions
from one subject to another are almost as marked as they are in the
book of Proverbs. "Civil and ceremonial, criminal and humane, secular
and religious, ancient and late laws and precedents are all mingled
together, with little trace of systematic arrangement."
The legal literature is found mainly in the books of Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy; outside the Pentateuch the most important
piece of legislation is Ezek. 40-48. This legal material may be
separated from its surroundings and arranged by itself. Indeed, this
has been done, and modern scholars are quite generally agreed that the
Pentateuch contains several distinct legal codes belonging to different
periods in the history of Israel and reflecting different stages of
political, social, and religious development: (1) The Decalogue; (2)
the Book of the Covenant; (3) the {196} Deuteronomic Code; (4) the Code
of Holiness; (5) the Priestly Code. Of these five codes the last two
are almost entirely religious and ceremonial, and as the similarities
between the Babylonian and Hebrew ceremonial have already been pointed
out, they need not be considered in this connection. The other three
contain much legislation concerning social, civil, and criminal
relations, just like the Babylonian legal provisions, and therefore may
be considered somewhat more in detail. In connection with the
Deuteronomic Code, however, it may be noted that three fourths of the
laws in the earlier codes are reproduced in some form in Deuteronomy;
so that for purposes of comparison, the Deuteronomic Code does not
furnish many new elements. It is seen, therefore, that for a
comparative study, the Code of Hammurabi on the one hand, and the
Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant on the other, furnish the most
important material; and since the Code of Hammurabi contains no
religious and ceremonial provisions, the material of that nature in the
Hebrew codes may be omitted in this connection.
That there exist similarities between the legislations of the two
nations even a superficial reading will show. One is immediately
struck, for example, by the similarity in the application of the _lex
talionis_: Ham. 196, "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they
shall destroy his eye"; 197, "If one {197} break a man's bone, they
shall break his bone"; 200, "If a man knock out the tooth of a man of
his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth." With this compare Exod.
21. 23-25, "Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe"; or
Deut. 19. 21, "Thine eyes shall not pity; life shall go for life, eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Compare also
Lev. 24. 19, 20, "If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath
done, so shall it be done to him: breach for breach; eye for eye, tooth
for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be
rendered to him." This principle is applied very extensively in both
codes in providing restitution for damage done.
The use of "the oath of innocence" is also enjoined in both codes: Ham.
249, "If a man hire an ox and a god strike it and it die, the man who
hired the ox shall swear before god and shall go free." With this may
be compared Exod. 22. 10, 11, "If a man deliver unto his neighbor an
ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast to keep, and it die, or be
hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it, the oath of Jehovah shall be
between them both, whether he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor's
goods, and the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make
restitution." The illustrations might be multiplied manifold. {198}
Jeremias points out twenty-four similarities between the Code of
Hammurabi and the Book of the Covenant alone;[27] which number is
greatly increased if the comparison is extended so as to include the
entire Pentateuch.
The spirit permeating the two systems is one of humaneness and
kindness. Hammurabi describes himself as a shepherd chosen by the gods
to care for his people, to lead them into safe pastures and to make
them dwell in peace and security. He compiled the code, "that the
great should not oppress the weak; to counsel the widow and orphan, to
render judgment and to decide the decisions of the land, and to succor
the injured." This is the same spirit that permeates the Pentateuchal
legislation.
The picture at the head of the code, representing Hammurabi standing
before the sun-god Shamash, "the supreme judge of heaven and earth," is
very suggestive, for it reminds one of the narrative in Exodus which
represents Moses as receiving the Hebrew laws directly from Jehovah.
Certainly, there are also differences between the two systems; and this
is only what we should expect, since the civilization of Babylon was
far in advance of and much more complex than that of the Israelites,
even during the period of the latter's highest development. Besides,
the lower religious conceptions would inevitably influence the
legislation.
{199}
Attention may be called also to some similarities between the Decalogue
and certain requirements in Babylonia, the existence of which is
implied in an incantation[28] in which these questions are asked: Has
he broken into the house of his neighbor? Has he approached the wife
of his neighbor? Has he spilled the blood of his neighbor? Has he
grasped the garment of his neighbor? These questions would seem to
imply the existence of laws like these: Thou shalt not break into the
house of thy neighbor; Thou shalt not approach the wife of thy
neighbor; Thou shalt not spill the blood of thy neighbor; Thou shalt
not grasp the garment of thy neighbor.
In view of all these similarities, the question naturally arises
whether the Babylonian legal system exerted any influence upon the
lawmakers of the Hebrews, for the resemblances are too close to be
explained entirely on the basis of coincidence. Those who admit some
relation between the two legislations are not in agreement as to the
nature of the connection. Some hold that there is direct dependence;
that the author or authors of the laws of the Pentateuch was or were
acquainted with the laws of Hammurabi, and made these laws the basis of
the Hebrew legislative system. The possibility of such dependence
cannot be denied. Surely, an acquaintance with the Code of Hammurabi
in the Arabian {200} desert or in Palestine at the time of the exodus
or later cannot appear strange in view of the evidence of the
Tel-el-Amarna tablets, showing that some time before the exodus
intercourse between Babylon and the West was frequent; that religious,
political, and literary influence was widespread, and that the language
of Babylon was the _lingua franca_ throughout Canaan. On the other
hand, there are those who believe that the parallels and analogies
between the two codes are due to the common Semitic origin of the two
systems. The Babylonians and the Hebrews were Semites, originally
dwelling in a common home. When they left this home they carried with
them their common traditions, laws, customs, and practices. In their
new homes they developed them and impressed upon them their own
individuality. The result among the Hebrews, determined in a large
measure by their peculiar religion, is seen in the legislation of the
Pentateuch, while the outcome in Babylon is best represented by the
Code of Hammurabi.
Which of these two explanations is correct it may be impossible to say
with absolute certainty. To me it seems that both contain elements of
truth. Sometimes the one, sometimes the other may be correct, while in
other cases the similarities may be due to coincidence. In any case,
the value of the Pentateuchal legislation remains {201} unaffected, for
it depends, not upon its origin or process of growth, but, rather, upon
its inherent spirit and character.
Attention may further be called to the existence in Babylonia of
stories showing almost startling resemblances to the accounts of the
creation of the world, of the origin of man and of sin, of a Deluge,
and other narratives contained in the first eleven chapters of the book
of Genesis. Several distinct creation stories, originating in
different religious centers, have been handed down. The most
remarkable of these, called _Enuma elish_ (when above), from its
opening words, has been deciphered from tablets found in the library of
Ashurbanipal in the ruins of Nineveh. These tablets represent a copy
made in the seventh century B.C. The time of the composition, or
compilation of the story, is not known. However, pictorial
representations of some of the scenes in the epic, and allusions in
other literary productions whose dates can be fixed, make it certain
that the story, or at least the most important component elements of
the story, existed before B.C. 2000. In its present form it belongs to
a period later than the elevation of Babylon to be the national center,
which took place under Hammurabi, about B.C. 2000, for the chief place
is assigned to Marduk, the god of Babylon.[29]
Echoes of this story are found in several Old {202} Testament passages,
especially in the poetic and prophetic writings. In these Jehovah is
represented as having contended with a great primeval monster, called
in some passages Rahab, in others Leviathan, or Dragon. This being
seems to symbolize chaos, or to personify the primeval ocean, which
existed when the process of creation began. In the conflict between
Jehovah and this monster the hostile creature and its helpers were
overthrown, after which the heavens and the earth were created. A few
of these passages may be quoted:
O Jehovah God of hosts,
Who is a mighty one, like unto thee, O Jehovah?
And thy faithfulness is round about thee.
Thou rulest the pride of the sea:
When the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them.
_Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain;_
_Thou hast scattered thine enemies with the arm of thy strength._
The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine:
The world and the fullness thereof, thou hast founded them,
The north and the south, thou hast created them (Psa. 89. 8-12).
Rahab is a reflection of the Babylonian Tiamat; Jehovah takes the place
of the Babylonian god, Marduk, the conqueror of Tiamat; the _enemies_
are the _helpers_ of Tiamat mentioned in the Babylonian poem. The
order of events is the same in the two accounts: first the conflict,
then creation.
He stirreth up the sea with his power,
And by his understanding _he smiteth through Rahab._
{203}
By his Spirit the heavens are garnished;
_His hand hath pierced the swift serpent_ (Job 26. 12, 13).
God will not withdraw his anger;
_The helpers of Rahab do stoop under him_ (Job 9. 13).
Yet God is my King of old,
Working salvation in the midst of the earth.
Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength:
_Thou brakest the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters._
_Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces;_
Thou gavest him to be food to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
Thou didst cleave fountain and flood:
Thou driedst up mighty rivers.
The day is thine, the night also is thine:
Thou hast prepared the light and the sun.
Thou hast set all the borders of the earth:
Thou hast made summer and winter (Psa. 74. 12-17).
The similarities between the Babylonian story called _Enuma elish_ and
the narrative of creation in Gen. 1 are especially pronounced: (1) Both
accounts recognize a time when all was chaos. In the Babylonian
conception this chaos is personified in Tiamat; in Gen. 1. 2 occurs the
word _tehom_, translated "deep," which is the same as Tiamat, changed
but slightly in passing from one language to the other. (2) In Genesis
light dispels darkness and order follows; in the Babylonian account,
Marduk, the god of light, overcomes the demon of chaos and darkness.
(3) The second act of creation is the making of the firmament, which
"divided the waters which were under the {204} firmament from the
waters which were above the firmament" (Gen. 1. 6-8); in the Babylonian
poem the body of Tiamat is divided and one half becomes the firmament
to keep the heavenly waters in place. (4) The third and fourth acts of
creation in the Hebrew story are the creation of earth and the
beginning of vegetation (Gen. 1. 9-13); the corresponding Babylonian
story has been lost, but it seems quite probable that these acts were
described in the same order on the fifth tablet. Berosus, in his
summary of the Babylonian account, says that Bel formed the earth out
of one half of Omorka's body--Omorka is probably a corruption of
_Ummu-Khubur_, a title of Tiamat--and as in every instance where the
narrative of Berosus has been tested it has proved to be correct, we
may assume that in this also he gives a correct reproduction of the
Babylonian tradition. Moreover, at the beginning of the seventh tablet
Marduk is hailed as "bestower of fruitfulness," "founder of
agriculture," "creator of grain and plants," he "who caused the green
herb to spring up." (5) The fifth act of creation is the making of the
heavenly bodies (Gen. 1. 14-19). With this the Babylonian parallel
shows close similarities, for it states that Marduk
Made the stations for the great gods,
The stars, their images, as the constellations he fixed,
He ordained the year, marked off its divisions.[30]
{205}
(6) The sixth and seventh acts of creation were the creation of fishes
and birds and of land animals (Gen. 1. 20-25): the Babylonian parallels
in _Enuma elish_ are wanting at present; but Berosus hints that they
were created at the same time as man, so that it is probable that the
account of these acts of creation appeared somewhere in the lost
portions of the fifth or sixth tablet. From allusions in other
writings we learn that Marduk was looked upon as the creator of the
animals and other living creatures of the field. (7) The eighth act of
creation, that of man (Gen. 1. 26-31), finds its parallel upon the
sixth tablet:
When Marduk heard the word of the gods
His heart moved him and he devised a cunning plan.
He opened his mouth and unto Ea he spoke,
That which he had conceived in his heart he made known unto him.
"My blood will I take and bone will I fashion,
I shall make man that man may ...
I shall create man, who shall inhabit the earth,
That the service of the gods may be established and that
their shrines may be built."[31]
In order to estimate rightly the relations between the Babylonian and
Hebrew accounts the differences between the two must also be noted. To
begin with, the order of the separate acts of creation is not quite the
same. For example, in the Babylonian account, the creation of the
heavenly bodies follows immediately upon the {206} making of the
firmament, while in the Hebrew story it follows the making of the earth
and the springing up of vegetation. Certainly, this difference is of
no special significance, and the change may easily be explained as due
to the desire of the Hebrew writer to crowd the creative acts into the
six working days of the week. The real difference is more fundamental
and appears especially in the conception of the nature and character of
Deity. The Babylonian story opens with these words:
When above the heaven was not named
And beneath the earth bore no name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And Mummu-Tiamat, the mother of them all--
Their waters were mingled together,
And no reed was formed, no marsh seen,
_When no one of the gods had been called into being,_
[And] none bore a name, and no destinies [were fixed],
_Then were created the gods in the midst of_ [_heaven_].
Compare with this the simple, yet majestic, conception, "In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In one case many
gods, in the other one God almighty; in one case the gods are a part of
the process of creation, in the other the uncreated God is in the
beginning. Genesis presents God as almighty, but also as kind,
beneficent, loving; Marduk, the Babylonian creator, is represented as a
great hero, but exceedingly selfish. He undertakes the mighty task of
{207} overcoming Tiamat only after making arrangements for a suitable
reward. The description of the heavenly banquet scene, to which
reference has been made earlier in the chapter, implies a conception of
the character of the gods which is separated by an impassable gulf from
the Old Testament ideal.
No one can read with an unbiased mind the two accounts without
realizing the great differences between the mythological, polytheistic
account of the Babylonians and the simple, solemn, sublime,
monotheistic picture in Genesis. The soberness, the dignity, the
simplicity of the Hebrew account lift it far above its Babylonian
counterpart. From it the crude nature myths have all been stripped
away. No drunken gods hold revels in its solemn lines. Above and
behind and in all is one righteous and beneficent God. In this sublime
ethical monotheism the Hebrew story rises infinitely above the story
that originated in the Euphrates-Tigris valley.
Another Babylonian tradition, the close relation of which to the
biblical account has long been recognized, is the story of the Deluge.
In its cuneiform text it was first discovered on fragments of tablets
brought from the library of Ashurbanipal. But that the Babylonians
possessed a story of the Flood was known before from an outline
preserved by Berosus. The tradition brought to {208} light by
archaeology forms an episode in an epic which narrates the exploits of
Gilgamesh and occupies the eleventh of the twelve parts into which the
epic is divided. Gilgamesh sprang from a city, Shurippak, which
afterward completely disappeared. He became king of Erech, where he
ruled as a tyrant until the gods created Ea-bani to destroy him. The
two, however, became bosom friends. Together they delivered Erech from
the Elamite oppressor, Khumbaba. Ishtar, the goddess of love, then
offered her hand to Gilgamesh in marriage, which he spurned with scorn.
Out of revenge, she sent a scorpion, whose sting proved fatal to
Ea-bani. Gilgamesh himself she smote with an incurable disease. To
find relief, the latter set out for the dwelling place of his
great-grandfather, Ut-napishtim, far away on the isles of the blessed.
When he finally reaches him the latter tells him all about the great
Flood from which he escaped to enjoy eternal life.[32]
The most striking resemblances between the Babylonian and Hebrew
stories of the Flood may now be noted: (1) Compare the instruction
given by God to Noah (Gen. 6. 13-22) with the words addressed by the
god Ea to Ut-napishtim:
O man of Shurippak, son of Ubaratutu,
Pull down thy house, build a ship,
Leave thy possessions, take thought for thy life,
{209}
Thy property abandon, save thy life,
Bring living seed of every kind into the ship.
The ship that thou shalt build,
So shall be the measure of its dimensions,
Thus shall correspond its breadth and height,
Into the ocean let it fare.[33]
(2) In both accounts the destruction is due to sin. This is definitely
stated in Gen. 6. 5-7. For the Babylonian story it is implied in the
rebuke given to Bel by Ea:
On the sinner lay his sin,
On the transgressor lay his transgression.
Forbear, let not all be destroyed.[34]
(3) In both accounts, only a seed of life sufficient to replenish the
earth is saved. Compare Gen. 6. 19, 20 with the command, "Bring living
seed of every kind into the ship," or with the statement:
I brought into the ship my family and household;
The cattle of the field, the beasts of the field, craftsmen, all
of them I brought in.[35]
(4) Both stories tell of a great storm and deluge of water. Gen. 7. 11
reads, "The fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows
of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and
forty nights." Compare with this:
The dawning of that day I feared,
I feared to behold that day.
I entered the ship and closed the door.
When the first flush of dawn appeared
There came up from the horizon a black cloud.
{210}
Adad thundered within it,
While Nabu and Marduk went before.
They go as messengers over mountain and valley.
Nergal bore away the anchor.
Ninib advances, the storm he makes to descend.
The Anunaki lifted up their torches,
With their brightness they light up the land.
Adad's storm reached unto heaven,
All light was turned into darkness,
It [flooded] the land like ...
........ the storm
Raged high, [the water climbed over] the mountains,
Like a besom of destruction they brought it upon men.[36]
(5) In both instances the structure rests upon a mountain in the north.
Gen. 8. 4 reads, "And the ark rested ... upon the mountains of Ararat,"
that is, Armenia. The Babylonian story reads:
To the land of Nisir the ship made its way,
The mount of Nisir held it fast that it moved not.[37]
Mount Nisir is east of the upper Tigris. (6) In both cases birds are
sent out to ascertain the condition of the land. Compare Gen. 8. 6-12
with these lines:
When the seventh day approached
I sent forth a dove and let her go.
The dove flew to and fro,
But there was no resting place and she returned.
I sent forth a swallow and let her go;
The swallow flew to and fro,
But there was no resting place, and she returned.
I sent forth a raven and let her go;
The raven flew away, she saw the abatement of the waters,
{211}
She drew near, she waded (?), she croaked, and came not back.
Then I sent everything forth to the four quarters of heaven.[38]
(7) Sacrifice is offered by Noah and Ut-napishtim, acceptable to the
God of Noah and to the gods of the Babylonian hero, in both cases
resulting in a promise not to repeat the Flood. Compare Gen. 8. 20-22
with:
I offered sacrifice,
I made a libation upon the mountain's peak.
By sevens I set out the sacrificial vessels,
Beneath them I heaped up reed and cedar wood and myrtle.
The gods smelt the savor,
The gods smelt the sweet savor,
The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer.[39]
Other similarities might be noted, such as the use of bitumen, the
arrangement of the ship in stories, and, what seems more striking, the
fact that the hero of the Babylonian story is the tenth antediluvian
king, while Noah is the tenth antediluvian patriarch.
As in the stories of creation, marked differences may also be noted
between the two representations of the Flood; and these differences
appear where they are most significant, namely, in the spirit and
purity of conception permeating the entire Hebrew account. For
example, the book of Genesis introduces the divine displeasure with
sin, the ethical element, as a fundamental note; then, {212} when the
divine mercy is aroused, the Flood ceases; according to the Babylonian
story, the Flood is caused by the capricious anger of Bel, the idea of
punishment for sin cropping out only as an incident in the conversation
between Ea and Bel at the end of the story. The Flood ceases because
the other gods are terrified, and Ishtar intercedes for her own
creation. Moreover, the whole Hebrew conception of the Divine differs
from the Babylonian. In the Hebrew account we find ourselves in an
atmosphere of ethical monotheism that is unknown apart from the chosen
people. Disappeared have all the gods who war with one another, who
rejoice in successful intrigues, who do not hesitate to tell untruths
or instruct their favorites to do so; the gods unstable in all their
ways, now seeking to destroy, now flattering their creatures; the gods
who, terrified by the storm, "cower like dogs" at the edge of heaven,
and who "gathered like flies" around the sacrifice of the saved hero.
All these characteristic features of the Babylonian account are absent
from the Bible. Surely, there is no connection between these deities
and the one sublime and gracious God of Genesis.
Lack of space will not permit us to institute detailed comparisons
between other narratives in the early chapters of Genesis and
Babylonian literature. It may be sufficient to say that the {213}
resemblances are not confined to the stories of creation and of the
Flood. True, no complete Babylonian story of paradise and of the fall
is at present known; nevertheless, there are certain features in the
biblical narrative which strongly point to Babylonia, and in the light
of the known fact that elements in the two important narratives of
creation and of the Flood are derived from Babylonia, it may be safe to
infer that in this case also echoes of Babylonian beliefs supplied, at
least in part, the framework of the Hebrew representation. The
antediluvian patriarchs also seem to have their counterparts in
Babylonian tradition, and the story of the Tower of Babel, though it
does not seem to be of Babylonian origin, presupposes a knowledge of
Babylonia, and it is not impossible that some Babylonian legend served
as the basis of it.
In closing this discussion, attention may be called to a few general
considerations that must be borne in mind in any attempt to answer the
question whether the religious and ethical ideas of the Hebrews which
show similarities with the ideas of other nations were borrowed bodily
from these nations, or, after all, contain elements that were original
with the Hebrews.
In the first place, it must be remembered that similarities between the
customs or beliefs of two peoples do not necessarily imply the
dependence {214} of one upon the other; much less do they indicate
which is the original. Where similarities are found at least four
possibilities should be recognized: A may depend upon B; B may depend
upon A; both A and B may have been derived from a common original; or A
and B may have developed independently, the similarities being merely
coincidence. Which interpretation is the right one in a given case
does not lie on the surface; it is only by careful, patient, unbiased
study that one may arrive at a proper understanding. Take as an
illustration the Decalogue. The Buddhists have "ten prohibitory laws,"
sometimes called the "Buddhist Decalogue." The first five read, "Thou
shalt not kill; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not lie; Thou shalt
not commit adultery; Thou shalt not get drunk." Three of these
correspond exactly to three of the demands in the Jewish Decalogue.
Does it necessarily follow that the Decalogue was borrowed from Buddha?
The Egyptians also had a sacred law. The law itself has not yet come
to light, but the Book of the Dead indicates its existence. In the one
hundred and twenty-fifth chapter of this book we read the
justifications offered by the dead: "I have not acted with deceit or
done evil to men; I have not oppressed the poor; I have not judged
unjustly," etc. These negations seem to imply the existence of a law,
either oral or written, {215} forbidding these things. From the
negations, "I have not acted with deceit; I have not committed murder;
I have not been unchaste," etc., one may infer that the Egyptians had
precepts corresponding substantially to some of the requirements in the
Decalogue. Does logic demand, therefore, the conclusion that the
Decalogue owes its existence to the sacred law of the Egyptians? Among
the Babylonians also we find evidence of the existence of, at least,
some of the requirements of the Hebrew Decalogue: "Thou shalt not break
into the house of thy neighbor; Thou shalt not approach the wife of thy
neighbor; Thou shalt not spill the blood of thy neighbor; Thou shalt
not grasp the garment of thy neighbor." Do these similarities prove
beyond question the dependence of the one upon the other?
There are, then, marked resemblances between the Hebrew Decalogue,
certain requirements among the Babylonians, among the Egyptians, and
among the Buddhists. I know of no one who claims that the Decalogue
was borrowed from Buddha; some, however, seem to think, that in part at
least, it was dependent upon Babylon; others, that Moses is indebted
for it to Egypt. True, in the minds of most scholars the dependence is
not direct; there would be room, according to their theory, for the
work of the Spirit in the selection of these fundamental, ethical
conceptions {216} from the great mass of requirements, the majority of
which are far inferior to the Decalogue. Such dependence, even if it
could be proved, would not rob the Decalogue of inspiration or
permanent value; but it seems to me that the similarities do not
warrant the claim of even such dependence. Is it not more likely that
these similarities are due to the instinct implanted in man by the
Creator, which recognizes the sanctity of life, of family relations,
and of property rights? But this instinct does not account for the
obvious differences between the Hebrew Decalogue as a whole and the
legislations of other peoples. These must be traced to the special
activity of a Spirit who produced among the Hebrews a collection of
commandments such as natural instinct, if left to itself, could not
have produced.
It is different, perhaps, when we consider the relation of the more
comprehensive civil legislation of the Pentateuch to the Code of
Hammurabi. There the resemblances are numerous and striking enough to
justify the inference that there exists some relation of dependence,
and yet by no means that the legislation of the Pentateuch is borrowed
directly from the other, or even that there is a literary dependence.
How extensive this dependence is only careful examination can show;
but, however complete, it will not destroy the fact that the laws of
Israel are permeated by a Divine {217} Spirit. The important question
is not, Where do we find the natural basis upon which the system is
built up by men under divine guidance? but, Does the spirit and
character of the system indicate such guidance?
In the second place, in seeking the truth about this relationship
assumption must not be confused with knowledge. Modern archaeologists
seem to be in peculiar danger of taking things for granted. It is not
without reason that a prominent Old Testament scholar proposes to
change the title of the third edition of a book entitled The Cuneiform
Inscriptions and the Old Testament into The Cuneiform Scholar and the
Old Testament. It is stated, for example, without qualification by
Delitzsch that the name "Yahweh" has been discovered on inscriptions
belonging to the period of Hammurabi. No hint is given that the
reading is questioned by many Assyriologists. There is, at least, a
possibility, no matter how small, of a different rendering, with, of
course, a vastly different conclusion. But admitting, as I believe we
must do, that the name does occur, the inference drawn from this
occurrence by Delitzsch, and expressed in the following words, is an
assumption and misleading, unless it is materially modified: "Yahweh,
the abiding one, the permanent one, who, unlike man, is not to-morrow a
thing of the past, but one that endures forever, that {218} lives and
labors for all eternity above the broad, resplendent, law-bound canopy
of the stars--it was this Yahweh that constituted the primordial
patrimony of those Canaanite tribes from which centuries afterward the
twelve tribes of Israel sprang."[40] The fact is that you may search
the Babylonian pantheon from one end to the other and you will not find
one god who in nature and character can compare with the Jehovah of
Israel, "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in
loving-kindness and truth."
Another instance of the same character is the story of the fall. One
thing we know, namely, that a story of the fall of man, similar to that
in Genesis, has not as yet been found among the fragments of Babylonian
libraries. Certainly, such story may have existed, and probably did
exist; it may even be, as has been asserted, that some connection
exists between the scriptural story of the fall and the picture on an
old Babylonian seal cylinder having in the center a tree with fruits
hanging down, on each side a figure, and behind the figure at the left
a mark which may represent a serpent. But the interpretation is by no
means certain. The fact that an assertion is made by an expert favors
the presumption, but does not prove, that the statement is true.
Some archaeologists claim that the monotheism of Israel was derived from
outside of Israel, {219} either from Arabia[41] or from Babylonia[42].
Among the arguments in favor of this claim is the occurrence of proper
names which are alleged to imply the existence of monotheism; for
example, _Yasma-ilu_, which may be translated "God hears," implying the
existence of but one God. However, it might mean also "_a_ god hears,"
or "god"--referring to one of many--"hears," the giver of the name
singling out the one for special consideration. And as there are clear
indications of polytheism in southern Arabia, where the name is found,
the name, in all probability, means the latter, thus implying
polytheism. The same may be said of the names found in Babylonia.
Whatever the primary meaning of _ilu_, these names do not in themselves
prove the existence of monotheism. They may be translated in perfect
accord with logic and grammar as admitting the existence of more than
one god. Indeed, the historical facts demand such interpretation. If
we find, for example, "Sin-muballit" ("the moon-god brings to life") as
the name of the father of Hammurabi, and "Shamshu-iluna" (in all
probability, "the sun-god is our god") as that of his son, the facts
surely indicate that the monotheism of the period was not very
distinct. The testimony of the Code of Hammurabi points in the same
direction, as also the most spiritual utterances of religion in the
Euphrates valley, the penitential psalms.
{220}
It is seen, then, that facts do not warrant the claim, made by some,
that that upon which rests the significance of the Bible in the world's
history, namely, monotheism, was taken over by the Hebrews from the
Babylonians. Josh. 24. 2 remains uncontradicted: "Your fathers dwelt
of old time beyond the River, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and
the father of Nahor; and _they served other gods_." It is only in
Israel that we find a clearly developed monotheism. Assumption and
facts are not quite the same.
Another important point, to which attention has already been called, is
the marked difference which obtains between the literature of the Old
Testament and that uncovered by archaeology. True, there are points of
contact; indeed, strange it would be if there were none; for, like the
Babylonians, the Hebrews were Semites. Surely, it is not strange that
nations of the same race, originally in the same home, should possess
similar traditions, customs, beliefs, and practices. When they left
their common home they carried with them their common traditions,
customs, and beliefs; in their new homes they developed them and
impressed upon them their own individualities. We are nowhere informed
in the Old Testament, and it would seem contrary to reason to suppose,
that at the time of Abraham, Moses, or at any other period, God emptied
the Hebrew mind and {221} consciousness of all the things which had
been the possession of the Semitic race from the beginning. Is it not
more likely that the inspired teachers and writers employed for their
loftier purposes the ancient traditions and beliefs familiar to their
contemporaries? In doing so they took that which was, in some cases,
common and unclean, and, purifying it under the guidance of the Divine
Spirit, made it the medium by which to impart the sublimest truths ever
presented to man. Obviously, the special religious value of the Old
Testament literature does not lie in what is common to it and Babylon,
but in the elements in which they differ.
The points of contact must not blind the eye to the points of contrast.
These points of contrast are in the spirit and atmosphere pervading the
Hebrew Scriptures, which are quite distinct, not simply from
Babylonian, but from all other literatures. These essential
differences occur, as we have seen, throughout the entire religious and
ethical literature. In many cases is agreement in form, but how far
superior the spirit and substance of the Hebrew! Think of the
different conceptions of the nature and character of God, of God's
relation to man, of the divine government of the world, and many other
truths precious to Christians in all ages. There is, indeed, in the
Hebrew record "an intensity of spiritual {222} conception, a sublimity
of spiritual tone, an insight into the unseen, a reliance upon an
invisible yet all-controlling Power, that create the gap between the
Hebrew and his brother Semite beyond the River."
How are we to account for these differences? Professor Sayce has
suggested an answer in these words: "I can find only one explanation,
unfashionable and antiquated though it be. In the language of a former
generation, it marks the dividing line between revelation and
unrevealed religion. It is like that something hard to define which
separates man from the ape, even though on the physiological side the
ape may be the ancestor of man."[43] Though the language of this
statement may be unfortunate, especially where it implies that there is
no revelation in the ancient religions outside of the Old Testament, it
does call attention to the secret of the fundamental difference between
the Old Testament sacred literature and that of the surrounding
nations. There is in the former abundant evidence of the activity of a
Spirit whose presence is less manifest in the sacred literatures of
other ancient nations.
True, the monuments have not spoken their last word; but if we have the
right to draw inferences from the known, we may safely affirm that
though the monuments may swell into infinity, they will offer nothing
to equal, much less to supersede, in substance and spirit, our {223}
Old Testament. We may receive gratefully every ray of light, but the
time has not yet come, nor ever will come, when we may lay aside the
Old Testament and accept as a substitute the legends and myths of
heathen lands to give to us the bread of life which the Saviour found
in the pages of the Old Book. Let us welcome the light and knowledge
God has bestowed upon us; let us rejoice in them with perfect assurance
that they are for good and not for evil; let us learn to use them
wisely and honestly, and let us still be ever alert listening for other
words, uttered ages ago, but not yet audible to modern ears. "It is
for us to catch these messages, and to understand them, that we may fit
them into the great fabric of apprehended truth to the enrichment of
ourselves, and to the glory of our common Lord."
NOTES ON CHAPTER V
[1] J. P. Peters, The Old Testament and the New Scholarship, p. 92.
[2] S. G. Smith, Religion in the Making, p. 20.
[3] Hugo Winckler, Himmels- und Weltenbild der Babylonier, p. 9.
[4] Professor Friedrich Delitzsch, of the University of Berlin,
delivered three lectures on the relation of Babylonian religion to the
religion of the Old Testament, under the title, "Babel und Bibel."
[5] A. H. Sayce, The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 276,
277.
[6] A. Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, I,
p. 86.
{224}
[7] R. W. Rogers, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 88.
Practically all the cuneiform inscriptions quoted or referred to in
this chapter are translated in R. W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the
Old Testament.
[8] Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, published by
Open Court Co., p. 65.
[9] A translation of the entire psalm is found in Sayce, The Religions
of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 419-421; also in Rogers, Religion
of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 182-184; R. F. Harper, Assyrian and
Babylonian Literature, pp. 436-439.
[10] Sayce, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 35, 93, 195.
A translation of a hymn composed by this king to his supreme god is
found in J. H. Breasted, A History of Egypt, pp. 371ff.
[11] An excellent brief survey of the religious conceptions of the
pre-Mosaic period is given in the article on "Religion of Israel," by
E. Kautzsch, in James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Vol.,
pp. 613ff.
[12] The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 95.
[13] Ibid., p. 97.
[14] The most recent and most satisfactory edition and translation of
the entire Babylonian story of creation is by L. W. King, The Seven
Tablets of Creation. The two quotations given are Tablet I, lines 7-9,
and Tablet III, lines 133-138.
[15] Additional portions of this hymn are found in R. W. Rogers,
Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 170ff.
[16] S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religions To-day, p. 14.
[17] A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, p. 15; A. H.
Sayce, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 476ff.; M.
Jastrow, in American Journal of Theology, 1898, pp. 315-352; A.
Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, I, pp.
198ff.
{225}
[18] Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, p. 38.
[19] Ibid., p. 101.
[20] Paul Haupt, Babylonian Elements in the Levitical Ritual, Journal
of Biblical Literature, 1900, p. 61.
[21] The details of this question have been discussed very extensively.
Admirable discussions of the entire subject are found in Sayce,
Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 448-478; Jeremias, Old
Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, II, pp. 112ff.
[22] Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, p. 469.
[23] Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, pp. 53ff.
[24] R. W. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 145.
[25] R. F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi; art. on the same subject in
Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Vol., pp. 584ff.; W. W.
Davies, The Codes of Hammurabi and Moses.
[26] The best and most complete recent treatment of the legal
literature of the Old Testament is found in C. F. Kent, Israel's Laws
and Legal Precedents, which is Vol. IV in The Student's Old Testament.
[27] Johannes Jeremias, Moses and Hammurabi, pp. 31ff.
[28] R. W. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 158.
[29] L. W. King, The Seven Tablets of Creation, Two Vols.; a
translation is also found in R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian
Literature, pp. 282ff. R. W. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and
Assyria, pp. 107ff.
[30] Tablet V, lines 1-3.
[31] Lines 1-8.
[32] An English translation of the entire epic is found in R. F.
Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Literature, pp. 324ff.; the Deluge
story is given by R. W. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp.
199ff.
{226}
[33] Lines 23-31.
[34] Lines 184-186.
[35] Lines 27, 85, 86.
[36] Lines 92-111.
[37] Lines 141, 142.
[38] Lines 146-156.
[39] Lines 156-162.
[40] Babel and Bible, Two Lectures, p. 62.
[41] F. Hommel, The Ancient Hebrew Tradition, pp. 75ff.
[42] P. Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, pp. 58ff.
[43] Preface to Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia.
{227}