■•r?*?i-.--.;^j EN E SIS AND flTlC TRADITION (^mndl Winivmiii^ pStrtatg THE GIFT ( DF QC±U.jATd,.c., and concludes tliat th(? creation leg(MJ(ls are, in part at least, as old as that (K(^smologie, S. 309-320). A tradition which was current among the inhabitants of the Tigris and lower Euphrates valleys for several thousand ye.'irs would be known and might perhaps be THE CREATION" OF THE UNIVERSE 7 entertained by people wlio liad been brouglit under the influence of Babylonian culture. Our main interest in the Babylonian tale centres in its possible affiliation with other cosmogonies, especially with the Hebrew ac- count of creation. Greater or less differences develop themselves in a tradition in the ordinary course of trans- mission, a fact which is abundantly exemplified by the variations of the Babylonian legend in Babylonia itself. It is not surprising, therefore, tliat even on the assump- tion of common origin, in the Assyro-Babylonian and HebreAv traditions of creation, after their subjection to diverse conditions, differences obtrude themselves. There is literary unlikeness. The Babylonian story knows nothing of a division into days (see Presbyterian Review, vol. x., 670 seq.) ; whereas the Hebrew account is distributed within a framework of six days. The Baby- lonian tale, moreover, not only encumbers the plain nar- rative of creation with an account of the choice and ex- altation of a demiurge and of his preparation for the mission, but it is, to say the least, highly figurative and to the last degree antliropomorphic ; the Hebrew story, on the other hand, is the sober recital in simple, yet stately prose of the impressive tradition concerning the development of the ordered universe from chaos. In addition to the marked literary contrasts there is a pro- found difference in conception. The Babylonian stories taken together describe the primeval waters as sponta- neously generative ; the Hebrew account represents the material of the universe as lying waste and lifeless, and as not assuming order or becoming productive of life un- til the going forth of the divine command. These diver- gent views are allied with the different theistic concep- tions of the two peoples. On this subject the fragments of Berosus' narrative throw no light. [_He is describing the origin of the ordered universe and assumes the ex- 8 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TKADITION istence of the gods, however he may have treated of them in his complete history, mentioning them only casually in connection with their respective activities in the work of creation. The cuneiform story goes back to a time when the gods did not exist. It depicts the pri- meval chaos of waters and proceeds to state, without de- termining the manner of origination, that the gods came into bring in successive periods of long duration and in the order assigned by Damaseius. The tradition as re- ported by the latter ascribes a material origin to the gods ; the primeval waters producing among others an earl}' pair of deities, from which the other gods were de- scended b}' successive generations — a conception which is, perhaps, allied to the Phoenician doctrine that out of the material of the universe were evolved sun, moon, stars and constellations which eventually arrived at con- sciousness and were called the watchers of heaven. In the Hebrew records, however, a different theistic doctrine prevails. Crod is the creator of the heavens and the earth, the bringer into existence of that which did not previously exist. Before the mountains Avere brought foi-th, or ever he had formed the eaith and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting ha is God. He was from the beginning or ever the earth was, when there were no depths, no t'humoth, no ti'amati (Prov. viii. But this difference in conceptions, diametrically opposed though these views be, is explicable without denial of kinship between the accounts so soon as the divergent thought of the two peoples is recalled. And two consid- erations leave no reasonable doubt of a relationship be- tween tli(^ two traditions : first, the ancient common hab- itat in Biibylonia of the tAvo peoples who transmitted these accounts ; and second, the community of conception, Hebrews and Babylonians uniting in describing the prim- THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE 9 itive condition of tile universe as an abyss of waters shrouded in darkness and subsequently parted in twain in order to tlie formation of heaven and earth. The kin- ship between the traditions need not be close, but kin- ship there is. The question then is, How are these two traditions re- lated to the original source ? An answer is offered by the mediation theory, which regards the Babylonian le- gend as intermediate in time and as forming the connect- ing link between the primitive story and its assumed He- brew modification. According to this theory, the early tradition, ever changing, passed through the elaborate Babylonian tale and thence into the purified Hebrew form. The prevalent opinion is exjDressed by Jensen, who declares that " the end of the fourth and the frag- ments of the fifth and seventh (?) tablets, together with the beginning of the first, quite unquestionably form the prototype of the biblical legends " (Kosmologie, S. 304). Notice that, in addition to the opening lines in the first tablet which depict the primitive condition of the universe as watery chaos, the part of the Babylonian tale which is declared to form the prototype of the biblical story is that portion which is taken up with the descrip- tion of the work of Marduk as fabricator of the universe (S. 304-306). The monotheistic revisers, finding nothing objectionable in the conception, allowed the description of the universe to remain, which represented it as once existing in a state of chaotic waters enshrouded in dark- ness. The story of the origin of the gods, believers in one god necessarily omitted, and took up the tale again with the work of the demiurge, Marduk, the light hringer, whom they simply identified with the one eternal God. Following the order of the Babylonian narrative, they next related the separation of the waters and formation of heaven ; then the gathering of the lower waters into one in GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION place and the appearance of the dry land ; then, depart- ing for a moment from the Babylonian order, the cloth- ing of earth's surface with vegetation ; then, once more like the Bab^donian narrative, the creation of the heavenly bodies and the calling forth of animate terrestrial beings. The Babylonian tale was thus, it is claimed, stri23ped of all features repugnant to the spirit of monotheism, re- duced to a fundamental though modified physical concep- tion, and transfused and glorified with the doctrine of the eternal God, creator and sovereign of the universe. This mediation theory, however, rests, we believe, on a demonstral3le error. Contrary to the common assump- tion, the Hebrew narrative is not chiefly, if it is at all, reflected in the Marduk section of the cuneiform story, but in the first tablet and in Damascius. It shines con- spicuously in the lineage which is assigned to the gods by these authorities, for the genealogical succession oL th(^ gods is the creational order of the natural objects which they were supposed to animate. Damascius, it will be remembered, reports the Babylonian belief that at first there were two principles of the universe, viz., the two primeval waters ; from which, as from parents, sprang not only Moymis and the gods Lachmu and Lachamu, but also two others, related as children of the same generation, Kishar and Anshar, which being in- t(n'preted mean the comprehensive heavens above and the comprehensive earth Ix^neath ; and of these in turn came a group of three — Auu, heaven, and Illinos, earth's surface, and Ea, the t<'n(\strial Avaters; and tlie son of the latter, so called because rising daily from that god's abode, the ocean, was Bel [Marduk], the sun, whom the ]3al)ylonians say is thc^ demiuii;(>. Evidently if for these divinities there bo substituted the natiu'al objects Avhich the divine names signify, an orderly statenumt is ren- dercid, like that in the book of Genesis, of the physical THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE 11 development of the universe. A similar doctrine per- meates the native literature. According to the monu- ments Gur, i.e. Apsu, the primeval ocean, was "the mother, the bearer of heaven and earth " (II H., 54, 18e ; ASKT., 76, 15/16), 'Hhe mother of Ann and the gods" (Ancient History from the Monuments : Bal)3donia, p. 66, note ; KP., vol. ix., 146, 64, note). Of these Anu, Bel, Le. Illil or "IXkcvo^;, and Ea constituted a triad, the su- preme one in the Assyrian pantheon. And of Ea and his consort Danikina, i.e. Dauke (II E.., 55, 53d), '' the king and queen of the watery deep " (II E., 55, 24c.d.), was born Marduk (II E-., 55, 64d). The account as transmitted by the first tablet does not expressly publish the descent of the gods from the primeval waters, as does Damascius, though traces of a traditional genealogy are contained in the later tablets of the series in allusions to the gods as the fathers or ancestors of Marduk. It does, however, purport to give the chronological order in which the gods came into ex- istence. It pictures a primitive chaos of waters, and then proceeds to relate the origin of the deities ; teaches, like Damascius, that Lachmu and Lachamu, whoever they may have been and who later became involved with Tiamat, came into existence and grew up ; that Anshar and Kishar — in other words that heaven and earth in the widest meaning of these terms, namel}^, all above and all below — were formed ; that after a long period Anu, the spirit of the heavens proper, and Bel, the surface of the earth, and Ea, the terrestrial waters, w^ere made.^ Here again the substitution for the gods of the natural ob- jects which their names signify and which they were be- lieved to animate yields a correct chronological account of the physical development of the universe. In the light of this evidence, the story which the tablets, espe- ^ Last two names restored from context and Damascius. 12 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TKADITION cially in their opening sentences, tell, and which thej re- veal later between the lines, is not in its germ a sun myth — although it has unfolded into or been engrafted on a sun myth (cp. Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p. 393) — but it is the deformed outgrowth of an earlier phy- sical doctrine of the origin of the universe. It may be read later between the lines of the Marduk section, we say ; for it is legible in Marduk 's inferior rank and in the actual place assigned to him in the pantheon. The Babylonian religion was a nature worship according to which natural objects were regarded as animated. Yet Marduk, the rising sun, who in earliest times was represented as destroyer of Tiamat, framer of heaven and earth and seas, and constructor of the abodes of the gods, was not originally worshipped as father of the gods, the first in order of time, the head of the pantheon, but as a subordinate deity ; and when at a late period he was admitted into the number of the great gods, it was as occupant of a humble position. To this fact the story of creation as told by the tablets — and in a part which is traceable to the earliest times — bears witness. The king of the gods is Anshar; he sends Anu to subdue Tiamat, and on Ann's failure employs Ea ; and not imtil the god of terrestrial waters proves unable does Anshar turn to Marduk as a last resort. It is only after this commission has been announced tliat Marduk is led into the princely chamber by the gods, who are called his an- cestors, and there endued with might and invest(Hl with dominion over the universe (iv. 14). This peculiarity is not accidental, but significant. The explanation is found in the underlying cosmological theory : Marduk's birth immediately followed that of tlie triad of deities, Anu (heaven), Bel (earth), and E:i (house of terrestrial water). The universe had in part developed before Marduk came into being ; his rank coincides with his THE CREATION OF TPIE UNIVERSE 13 place in unfolding cosmos, and tlie order in which the gods one after another are sent forth to battle, the reK- ance which is placed in Marduk's predecessors before he is appealed to for help, likewise correspond broadly to the chronological succession of the gods as determined by the creative order of the natural objects which they represent. Thus even the Marduk section of the crea- tion story, notwithstanding its representation of that god as a maker of heaven and earth, seems in reality to pre- suppose a somewhat advanced stage in the formation of the universe before his offices are called into requisition. With this elucidation in mind, the cuneiform story as a whole should be reviewed. The tale begins with the statement that at first the primeval waters lay mingled together, and eventually became the begetter and bearer of heaven and earth. Deities came into existence : first Lachmu and Lachamu; then, after a considerable peri- od, all above and all beloAv ; after lapse of other years, heaven, earth's surface, and terrestrial waters ; finally, Marduk, the rising sun.' But Tiamat, the watery abyss, resisted the unfolding order and infringed the divine command, probably by her continual endeavor to con- found earth and heaven and sea. The nightly darkness obscuring the regions of the universe and enveloping all nature in the primeval shroud, the dense mists reuniting at times the waters of heaven and earth, continued rains when the windows of heaven were opened and the foun- tains of the great deep broken up, which threatened to deluge the earth and again convert the celestial and ter- restrial waters into the one vast original ocean, suggested a possible return to chaos ; yea, told these Babylonians who believed in the existence of animate beings back of * Compare the Phoenician tradition that the heavenly bodies were spon- taneously developed from the chaotic mass of matter and in process of time arrived at consciousness. 14 CiENKSIS AND SEMITIC TKADITION every natural object, of a determined struggle on the part of Tiamat to reduce all things to primitive disorder ; while the black clouds and vapors of fantastic shape, the angry niutterings of thunder and the fierce tornado evoked in their superstitious minds the conception of a brood of horrid creatures, offspring and abettors of Ti- amat, allied with their cruel ^jroi^cui tress in bitter war- fare against the established order of the universe. These foes, which the Babylonians discerned in darkness and fog and storm, the deity of the comprehensive heavens, Anshar, attempted in vain to overcome. Ea, lord of earthly ^\'aters, availed still less. Finally Marduk, the rising sun, was sent. A fearful storm A\'as the result (Tablet iv., 45 seq.), but the god of the rising sun dis- pelled the darkness, scattered the hideously shaped clouds, lifted the vapors in masses on high, subdued the tempest, reopened the space between heaven and earth, revealed the blue firmament, cleared a pathway for the starry host, brought to light the earth and dried its sur- face, awoke animal and vegetable life. The story in its developed form is an exaltation of the sun. The events which preceded the sun's appearance are recognized ; but being apart from the plan are not dwelt upon. Moreover, in course of time, with the growth of the mythological conception and the conse- quent partial concealment of the germ of the tale, there ultimatel}^ developed a story which ascribed to the hero Marduk results Avhich, even in Babylonian thought, were in nowise due to the sun's agency (cp. Jensen, Kosmolo- gie, S. 309). Couqiaro A\ith this Babylonian story the account which the Israelites transmitted. A striking feature of th(^ Hebrew narrative is its symmetry. While b}^ necessity a natural sequence of events is observed, the principle of grouping prevails. Creative acts, so distinct as to be in- thp: creation of the univeuse 15 troduced by the recurring formula, " God said, Let there be," and dismissed by the statement, " God saw that it was good ; " creative acts so diverse as is making from creating, or as is the gift of life from the mere separa- tion of the material elements, are in several instances grouped in one and the same period, as in the first, third, lifth, and sixth days. Again, the motionless objects are grouped as the works of the first three days, and the moving objects — or those which appear to move — the works of the last three days. Still again, the respective periods of these two great divisions offset each other : the creation of light on the first day corresponds to the making of the heavenly luminaries on the first day of the second division ; the parting of waters by a firmament on the second day, to the calling forth of animate beings in the waters and in front of the firmament on the same day of the second division ; the appearance of dry land and of vegetation on the third day, to the land animals and the appointment of herbs for their food on the third day of the second division. This distribution of the vari- ous works of creation is not arbitrary, but logically determined ; it is based on the relations of these objects the one to the other, and it exhibits the true character and progress and purpose of creation. Of course the conclusion would be unwarranted that this symmetry is necessarily artificial ; but the theory that it is the result of intentional arrangement is plausi- ble and has been adopted and advocated by leading in- terpreters. If entertained, its bearing upon another question must not be overlooked. If it be true that the material has been arranged, it follows that while the natural sequence of events has in a measure been re- tained in the narrative, chronology has been subordi- nated ; it has been either intentionally ignored or at least only so iixr regarded as that the works of creation, 16 CIENKSIS AND SEMITIC TKADITION which may have had their beginning in a prior period, have been recounted in the order of their " day " or period of prominence, not in the ordei-of their coming into existence. What, then, is meant by the much-discussed days of the Hebrew tradition ; for so far as yet appears they are peculiar to the Hebrew transmission ? ' Under the teaching of God, they are the accurate and admirable classification of the works of creation under six divi- sions ; six distinct groups of deeds followed by cessa- tion from creative activity, for the end and ideal of crea- tion had been attained. And in view of the sacredness which was conventionally attached to the number seven, even by the authorized teachers of Israel, seven sections were peculiarly appropriate in a narrative of God's works. And these sections are called days. It is to be admitted that these expressions can, on purely linguistic grounds, be interpreted as ordinary days, which, taken together, form a Aveek of seven times twenty-four hours. It is also to be admitted that, on literary grounds, these terms can be interpreted as days, marked by the alterna- tion of light and darkness, but not consecutive. The several days are the respective points of time when God issued his decrees. No stringent reason compels belief that this same Avriter would teach that there were ten generations and no more from Adam to Noah and from 81iem to Abraham ; and certainly Matthew neither be- lieved nor would teach that the generations from Abra- ham to David and from David to the ca^^tivity and from the captivity to Christ were in every case consecutive and in each group were fourteen tind no more. Perhaps the Hebrew writer is pursuing th(> same plan when he describes the six groups of creative deeds as the works of six several days, and adds thereto the seventh day of * The Etruscan story is of course not forgotten. THE CIIEATION OF THE UNIVERSE 17 divine rest ; thus making, when taken together, a com- plete week and a heavenly example to men of labor and repose. Still again it is to be admitted with Driver, Delitzsch, and a host of other distinguished scholars, that " the writer may have consciously used the term [day] figuratively," for the words day and week were un- questionably employed by the Hebrews with latitude. It has, indeed, been argued that the periphrastic division of the day into two halves bounded by evening and morning is conclusive proof that an ordinary day of twenty-four hours is meant (Dillmann) ; but if day is used figuratively, evening and morning must likemse be, and accordingly the answer has been well returned that evening may mean " the time when the Creator brought his work [temporarily] to a close, and morning the time when the creative activity began anew " (Delitzsch). Each period of creative activity was followed by one of inactivity, corresponding to night when man works not ; and when creation was complete, when the ideal which God had set before him had been attained, when all had been pronounced very good, God entered upon his long and as yet unended Sabbath of cessation from creative work, or, as the wi'iter himseK significantly phrases it, from " work which God made in a creative manner." Three interpretations of the term day are accordingly in themselves admissible, and we are constrained to join others in saying with Augustine : "What kind of days these were it is extremely difincult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive and how much more to say ! " (De civ. Dei, xi., 6). A breadth of statement is employed by the author which is usual with biblical ^viiters when setting forth the subordinate elements of their doctrine and which renders the teaching of Scripture broader than the varying conceptions which man in different ages en- tertains. 2 18 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION The writer s own concex)tion, not of day, but of the time occupied in bringing the world into its present con- dition, may be ascertained, if not with certainty, at least Avith prubal)ility. The plausibility of the theory that he subordinates timu to arrang(jinent has already been men- tioned. Add to that the fitting omission of the definite article from the enumeration of the ]^)eriods : day one, day second, day third, day fourth, day fifth, and, to judge from the versions, day sixth ; leaving the expressions in themselves indefinite, A\'hich is not customary when, as here, ordinals are used and the da}^s of an ordinary week-period are numbered (Num. xxix. 17, 20, 23, etc. ; Neh. viii. [2], 13, 18; cp. Num. vii. 12, etc., et pass.). The method of enumeration employed is suitable for ex- hibiting a relation between the groups which the writer would not narrowly define ; and accordingly he sjjeaks of a second day, a thuxl day, etc. Add further the Semitic tradition A^'hich has been preserved in the Babylonian version that the successive stages in the development of the ordered universe occupied long periods of untold duration, and the presumption becomes strong that the Hebrew writer likewise conceived of the creation period, not as seven times twenty-four hours, but as vastly, in- definitely long. So much for the style and for the framework of the He- brew tradition. Now as to its contents. The cosmology underlying the Hel>rew account, apart from its theology, is that at first there was a chaos : called the earth, be- cause the heavens had not yet been detached from the mass, and because it contained all the elements out of which the universe was formed ; called also the great deep, or fhom, because existing in watery or fluid state. This mass of material was shrouded in darkness. Then light was created. All accounts, Jlabylonian and He- brew, presuppose the existence of light before the sun. THE CREATION OP THE UNIVERSE 19 The idea was familiar to the ancients, being found among the Aryans east and west as well as among the Semites. The doctrine is true ; the causes were of old at work which make the light of myriad suns and render our own orb of day luminous. Then the blue vault called the firmament parted the primeval waters, dividing the fluid heavens from the fluid earth. The latter watery body is next described as undergoing change ; it was separated into seas and dry land, and the land clothed with verdure. As yet, however, notwithstanding the al- lusion to vegetation, no mention has been made of the creation of the sun. In this the Hebrew departs from the Babylonian order of narration, which tells of the for- mation of the sun and stars immediately after that of earth and before any allusion has been made to vegeta- tion. The explanation may be found either in the au- thor's intention to teach that vegetation preceded the sun's formation or at least the sun's appearance through the mists, or else in his method of grouj^ing already described. It may be that the author, without intend- ing to teach the priority of vegetation to the sun's light and heat, having narrated the gathering together of the terrestrial waters and the appearance of dry land, wished to preserve the determined symmetry of his account and to complete the present picture by telling of the verdure which forthwith covered the earth, and which in reality forms one stage with the ground in the earth's develop- ment. It may be added in passing that perhaps no man to this day knows whether vegetation delayed until the sun had thrown off the planets which are within the earth's orbit and had assumed its present dimensions, or whether herbage appeared long before. Proceeding now to the movable bodies, the Hebrew narrator first describes those which pass iu solemn procession across the sky — the sun, moon, and stars. Then he depicts as 20 GENKSIS AND SEMITIC TRADITIOlSr a succeeding day tlie time when fish swarmed in the waters, and fowl flew in the heaven, when the lower ani- mals reached great development and dominated the earth. He pictures next the day of the land animals, made of the earth, higher in order of being than fish or fowl, at- taining to prominence and dominion after the reign of aquatic and aerial animals, and culminating in man, created in the same manner as were they, ruling at the same time with them on earth, but made in the divine image and commissioned to subdue the earth to himself and reign supreme among its creatures. The outcroppings of the Semitic tradition of the crea- tion of the world, as they come to light on the Tigris and the lower Euphrates and in Palestine, reveal a diverging trend in southern Mesopotamia. The original tradition, discoverable even beneath the distortions to which it was subjected by polytheism, represented a primitive condition of the universe consisting of chaotic Avaters enveloped in darkness ; a separation of these so-called waters into two divisions, the great above and the great beneath ; the clear distinction, later, of these into heaven above and land and ocean beneath. Under the influence of animistic nature worship, however, this fmidamental physical doctrine was perverted. The divisions of the universe w^ere severally assigned a spirit and deified ; consequently the original teaching of the orderly de- velopment of the material universe became in allegory the genealogy of the gods. At the point where the ap- pearance of the sun was noted, the tradition diverged still more. The worshippers of the one true God, pre- serving both the physical doctrine and the sublime truth behind it, told of the appearance, at God's command, of sun, moon, and stars, of animate beings in sea and air, of beasts on earth and of man in the divine image. The Assyro-Babylonian adorers of nature, on the other THE CREATION OF TUE UNIVERSE 21 hand, worshipping the sun, hail him as offspring of ocean's lord and lady, because going forth daily from the sea, laud him as the restorer and preserver of order and the awakener of life ; yea, they exalt him at length to the rank of creator, and in their fervor ascribe to him the completion of the universe. The physical doctrine, which is the substratum of the tradition, has been preserved in the Hebrew transmission. The deification of nature and the glorification of the sun are polytheistic amplifica- tions. The Hebrew account is the intentional perpetua- tion of the basal doctrine of the origin of the universe. And now allow the eye to sweep in rapid survey over the literature of antiquity. Cosmological theories enter- tained by the peoples who were akin or neighbor or by commerce and conquest bound to the Babylonians, As- syrians, and Hebrews come to light. In Etruria and Greece, in Persia, India, Egypt, and Phoenicia cosmogo- nies are found which bear resemblances to the Semitic tradition ; concurring with it not in the accidents of literary form and mythological fancies, but in the es- sential of physical doctrine. For the most part they, too, like the Babylonian tale, find a place for the sun and ex- aggerate his agency ; and yet not one is a sun myth. The exact relationship of these cosmogonies to the Semit- ic tradition cannot as yet be finally determined ; but all confirmation which, with increasing knowledge of ancient thought, shall accrue that these teachings have a com- mon origin with the Babylonian and Hebrew transmis- sion is additional proof that the genealogy of the gods is a distortion and the sun myth an amplification of the primitive tradition. These national traditions show more. They show that the original doctrine was never wholly lost sight of by mankind at large. It was an influential presence in hu- man thought. But especially among the ancient Baby- 22 QICNESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION lonians was tlie primitive tradition apprehended despite its peiTersion ; for the same agencies which distorted worked also to preserve it. The early doctrine of the more or less vital relation between the gods and the natural objects Avhose names tlioj bore and which they inhabited, a doctrine which had converted the account of the 23hysical development of the universe into the genea- logical descent of the gods, must act in the opposite di- rection ; the genealogy of the gods must be ever readily reconvertible into the g(Uierations of the heavens and the earth. Whenever, then, this primitive, ever-discernible, and imperishable teaching of the origin of the universe was held by monothcists, it was formulated essentially as is the doctrine in the opening chapter of the book of Genesis. n THE SABBATH Eighteen years ago Mr. Fox Ta]bot, one of the first successful translators of the Assyrian inscriptions, an- nounced to the public his opinion that in the fifth tablet of the creation series the Babylonians clearly affirmed " the origin of the Sabbath " to have been " coeval with creation." He found on that tablet these remarkable lines : *' Every month without fail he [i.e. God] made holy assembly- davs. On the seventh day he appointed a holy day And to cease from all business he commanded." (KP., vol. ix., 117, 118; cp. TSBA., vol. v., 428.) Increased knowledge of the Assyrian vocabulary has, however, made it certain that the version given by the eminent translator is inaccurate at crucial points. The word ag{o, which he boldly guessed to mean holy assem- bly-day (thinking of the Hebrew chag), is now known to signify a crown or, as Jensen prefers to describe it, a royal cap ; and the passage proves to be a description, not of the institution of the Sabbath, but of the moon's changes. A translation which is nearer to the sense of the original IS (( He caused the moon to shine forth, he subjected the night to it, He made it known as an object of the night. In order to make known the days Every month without fail mark off [time (?)] with the crown ; 24 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION At the beginning of the month, on rising at evening, Horns thou dost show in order to make known the heaven, On the seventh day the crown " About the time tliat tliis text came to light, a discov- ery was made which has awakened Avide interest. The phrase *' day of rest of heart," as the words have been translated, was found in an Assyrian vocabulary and by its side its synonym was given as Shahattu. This fact nat- urally attracted attention. But it was early abused. Without any warrant save that of plausibility to justify the procedure, it was combined with a peculiar feature of a ritualistic calendar, which is presently to be men- tioned, and the announcement was published — not as a conjecture, but as a fact — that the ^vord Sabbath was known to the Assyrians, was the name given to the sev- enth, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty- eighth day of each month, and was " explained as *a day of rest for the heart ' " (Sayce, Academy, Nov., 1875, p. 554, Babylonian Literature, p. 55 ; Schrader, KATl, S. 18 fi". ; Tide, Babylouisch-assyrische Geschichte, S. 550). But these statements are bold assumptions. The pronunciation of the word as Shahaila is not quite cer- tain. The signs Avhich compose it may be so read ; but they may likewise be pronounced Shabctu or Shaniittu or ShapaJfii. One reading is as likely as another. There is no inherent reason for a preference. Shabafiii has been adopted solely because it is a suitable synonym of the phrase " day of rest of heart." But here, again, a question must bo raised. The phrase nuch libbi, which has been translated ^' rest of heart," is of frequent occur- rence in Assyrian literature in this form or a variation of it, being employed to signify the appeasing of the heart of the gods. This meaning must be retained in the pas- sage under discussion unless other facts come to light (cp. Jens(^n, ZA., vol. iv., t274). The utmost that this THE SABBATH 25 celebrated line yields is tliat a day of propitiation was possibly called Sabbath. From aught that appears, it was neither a day of rest nor the recurring seventh day, but any season devoted to appeasing an angry god. Reference has been made to a ritualistic calendar. The first tablet of the kind was discovered in the year 1869 by that enthusiastic Assyriologist of former days, Mr. George Smith, while at work upon the heap of miscel- laneous fragments of clay and stone tablets which had come into possession of the British Museum (Assyrian Discoveries, p. 12). It was a religious calendar for the intercalary month of second Elul, and indicated for each day in succession the deity of the day, the festival to be celebrated, the offerings to be made, and occasionally the proper deportment of men. But these regulations were not peculiar to intercalaiy Elul. In their main provi- sions they were common to all the months of the year. Numerous similar tablets have come to light which show that the corresponding days of the various months were distinguished by the same festivals, the same commands, and the same prohibitions. The feature which lends to these calendars their great interest is the special notice taken of the recurring seventh day. On the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth day of each month certain acts are forbidden. The prohibitions are the same for each of these days. The law was this : *' The seventh day, a festival of the god Marduk and the god- dess Zarpanitu.^ A propitious day. [Nevertheless] an unlucky day : the shepherd of many nations shall not eat meat " which has been cooked on the fire . . . , the raiment of his body he shall not change, nor put on clean clothing, nor make a libation ; the king shall not ride in his chariot nor speak as a ruler ; the 1 The deities are diflerent on each of the recurring seventh days. 3 ''Anything," nineteenth day. 26 GENESIS AND SEMITIC TKADITION l^riest shall not carry on a conversation in a secret place ; the seer shall not lay his hand on the sick, nor stretch it forth to call down a curse. At night ^ in the presence of god Marduk and god- dess Ishtar the king shall make his offering, pour out his liba- tion ; the lifting up of his hands unto god will be acceptable." How striking is the resemblance to the Jewish Sab- bath ! The shepherd of many nations — the proud title in Babylonia and Assyria of the grand monarch who swayed his scej)tre over a vast empire of mixed and sub- jugated peoples — the shepherd of many nations is warned not to eat cooked meat on the recurring seventh day ; and it was a statute in Israel that the people should neither bake, nor seethe, nor kindle a fire throughout their habitations on the Sabbath, and the man who gathered sticks in the wilderness on that day was stoned (Ex. xvi. 23 ; xxxv. 3 ; Num. xv. 32-36). The Assyrian king is warned not to ride in his chariot on the seventh day, and the Jews restricted the distance that might be travelled on that day. The king is warned not to speak as a ruler, which seems to mean that he must neither legislate nor judge ; and according to the rabbis cases at law might not be tried on the Sabbath, save when the offence was against religion. In Assyria the seer must not apply his hand to the sick ; and the scribes and Pharisees foimd fault with Jesus of Nazareth because he healed the sick on the Sabbath day. These common points, however, prove nothing. Not- withstanding them, the Hebrew law may possibly have no connection with the precepts of this particular As- syrian ritual. The resemblance is indeed gi'eat, but the contrasts are greater. The day set apaii was not the same in both countries, the controlling idea of the day was different and the practice was different. 1. There was a difference as to the day. In Assyria ' *'In the morning," twenty-first day. THE SABBATH 27 significance attached to that day of the month which was seven or its multiple. Among the Israelites it was inde- pendent of the day of the month, being the recurring seventh day in unbroken succession throughout the year.^ In other words, among the Assyrians it was al- ways the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first and twenty-eighth days of the month which were marked by these regulations, while the Hebrew Sabbath might fall on any day of the month. The difference as fco the day is, it is true, of minor importance ; for it is conceiv- able that it arose by simple substitution, parallel to the historic change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week : nevertheless the difference is char- acteristic and may be profoundly significant. 2. Again, a different conception of the day prevailed in the two countries. Every feature of the Jewish ob- servance, even the minutest, both before the period of Babylonian influence and after the exile, is based on the theory that the Sabbath is a day of rest from labor. There was a deeper thought. The Creator rested on the seventh day and in his benevolence blessed it and hal- lowed it that all his creatures might enjoy like rest. The Sabbath should be a benediction to man's physical being and woo his soul to greater love for God. This pure and sublime truth stands in marked con- trast to the Assyrian theory. In Assyria the recurring seventh day of the month was not a sacred day, but merely an unlucky day. The prohibitions which are found in the ritual are not laws, but warnings. Man is not forbidden, but cautioned. The deeds prohibited are not wrong, but dangerous. It is unlucky for the king to ^The law speaks of a period of six days intervening between the Sabbaths. The fifty days which elapsed between the offering of the sheaf of the first fruits and Pentecost included the ends of two months and yet including the next morning numbered seven weeks. 2S GENESIS AND SEMITIC TRADITION ride in liis chariot on that day, unUicky for the priest to c'on\'erse in private, unlucky for the seer to stretch forth his hand to toucli the sick. What gave to the day this dismal character ? Un- propitiousness was no uncommon characteristic of times and seasons in Assyria. The Assyrians regarded days M hen it was inauspicious to cat fish, dangerous to pay money, unfortunate to ride in a ship, lucky to kill a snake. They noted and catalogued the months as lucky or malucky for going to camp or engaging in battle (III E., 52). Th(\y watched the varying aspects of the moon l)ecauso they thought that they discerned portents of good or o^dl in hmar phenomena. The sole 2:)eculiarity of the calendar umh-r consideration is that unlucky acts are noted for the recurring seventli and the nineteenth day of tlie month. Tlir^ phasing of the moon has properly been thought of as the possil)l<^ explan.ition for the separation of these days from all others. The radiant orb of night has S(}rved many peoples as a heavenly clock, measuring off the montli and dividing it into seven-day periods. But in the ritualistic calendar tlie months are not lunar, but contain thirty days ; and the unlucky days fall on the same date every month. The ill-fated day might fairly c