{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4076", "width": "2647", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "A\\n^Wi^H\\nGlass\\n7\\nBook_\\n.W^\\nCOPYRIGHT DfiPOSIT", "height": "3828", "width": "2303", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3828", "width": "2303", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3828", "width": "2303", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3828", "width": "2303", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3828", "width": "2303", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3828", "width": "2303", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3828", "width": "2303", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3828", "width": "2303", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3828", "width": "2303", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "The Book of\\nGENESIS\\nIN THE Light of\\nModern Knowledge\\nBY\\nREV. ELWOOD WORCESTER, D. D.\\nNew York\\nMcCLURE, PHILLIPS CO\\nM. CM. I.", "height": "3828", "width": "2303", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "CHALDEAN TEMPLE\\nRestored liy Ch. Chipiez, Perrot and Chlpiez\\nHistoid of Art in Antli^iUty", "height": "2656", "width": "2078", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "", "height": "1630", "width": "1012", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "H\\nTHF BF.APY OF\\nCONGRESS,\\nTwo CopiEB Received\\nMAY. 15 1901\\nCopyright entry\\nCLASS ^XXc No\\nCOPY B.\\nCopyright, 1901, by\\nMcClure, Phillips Co,", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "\u00e2\u0082\u00acd tl^e ^vivit of\\nilijeljjon ^omerbUle IKultjSott:\\nAmong the charges brought unjustly, as I\\nbeheve, against Moses, one is that he forgot\\nthe name of his Father-in-law, calling him in-\\ndiscriminately, now Jethro, now Reuel, now\\nRaguel, and again Hobab. Although I\\nhardly dare hope that any tidings of these\\npoor pages will reach you in the pure sphere\\nyou now inhabit, I place your name here in\\nbenediction of these studies, and in memory\\nof the two great occasions of my life when\\nyour hands rested in blessing on my head.\\nWhile I do not imagine that you would have\\nagreed with all the contents of this book, I\\nplease myself by thinking that you would have\\nenjoyed reading it.", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "Preface\\n1 OFFER this work to the pubHc for what it is\\nworth. For a good many years it has been\\nour custom in St. Stephen s Church, in the Sun-\\nday afternoon services, to dehver a series of lec-\\ntures on the Bible or on some other subject\\nconnected with the Christian rehgion. In this\\nway these lectures were prepared and delivered\\nin the winter of 1898-99. This circumstance in\\nitself defines their scope, and it may be regarded\\nas a sufficient excuse for their limitations. In this\\ntask I had primarily in view a congregation of\\nfrom five hundred to a thousand persons whom I\\ndesired to instruct and interest. It will be ap-\\nparent to men accustomed to address audiences\\nthat many matters important in themselves must\\nof necessity be excluded from such a presenta-\\ntion, and that the purely critical problems arising\\nwould have to be dealt with very lightly. So\\nmuch have I lost by my mode of treatment. But,\\non the other hand, I am certain that the con-\\nsciousness of the audience to which the results of\\nmy studies must be submitted, in other respects\\nhas been a distinct advantage. This book does\\nnot attempt to teach scholars, though possibly\\nsome may find useful material in it. Still less\\ndoes it pretend to be a complete commentary on\\nthe earher chapters of Genesis. But its contents\\n(Wi)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "REFACE\\nhave been listened to with serious atention by a\\nlarge number of persons. It may therefore find a\\nplace with the reading public between technical\\nhand-books which are instructive, but which no-\\nbody reads, and mere popular effusions which are\\nread but which do not instruct. Many of the\\nopinions advanced in this book may meet with\\nopposition; but it cannot be said that they are\\nstated recklessly or without due regard to conse-\\nquences. On the contrary, so much have I\\nbeen impressed with the unique importance of\\nthe sacred Narrative, and with the impossibility\\nof attaining certainty in such comparisons as it\\nsuggests, that I have minimized rather than mag-\\nnified its resemblances to the Sacred Books of\\nthe Nations.\\nThe other limitation imposed upon me I can-\\nnot speak of so hopefully. Composed piece-meal,\\nweek by week, for the most part late at night, as\\none of the duties of a busy life, these lectures\\nmust necessarily lack the coherence of thought\\nand execution which should belong to works of\\nthis order. If the stream deepens as it flows, I do\\nnot think that this should be regarded as a fault.\\nIn discussing so many complicated questions as to\\nwhich no unanimity of opinion yet prevails, I do\\nnot deceive myself with the hope that I have not\\nfallen into error more than once. But I trust that\\nboth spirit and letter will bear testimony to my\\ndesire to know and to speak the truth. I am\\naware that the critical apparatus I have employed\\nis too simple. Scholars, should any do me the\\nhonor of glancing at these pages, will miss the\\nfamiliar J\\\\ y, etc. Distinctions so refined I de-\\nspaired of being able to make plain even to a very\\n(viii)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "Preface\\nintelligent audience. Neither, to tell the truth,\\nhave I ever succeeded in convincing myself of\\ntheir necessity. It is quite true that in the so-called\\ndocument of the Jehovist a good many indepen-\\ndent narratives occur which have little to do with\\none another, and which stand in no relation to the\\nstory of the Flood. Instead of referring these,\\nhowever, to different Hebrew writers (J^ J^ etc.),\\nit seems to me simpler and often quite as satis-\\nfactory to suppose with Dillmann that these nar-\\nratives were collected, arranged and rewritten\\nby one writer. Naturally these little tales are not\\nconsistent with one another or with the Flood,\\nfor they arose entirely independently. Each one,\\nfor the most part, formed the subject of a sep-\\narate tradition, and only when they were placed\\nside by side in a narrative supposed to be con-\\ntinuous, would their inconsistencies appear. As\\nto their failure to square with all the conse-\\nquences of the Flood, even critics appear to find\\nit difficult to disabuse their minds of the idea that\\nthe Flood really happened. I admit that several\\nJehovists, or several strata in the Jehovist docu-\\nment, are often a convenient hypothesis. Still\\nthere remains the curious similarity of style in\\nthese strata to be accounted for.\\nI have carried these lectures through the story\\nof the Tower of Babel. There ends what I may\\ncall the cosmical portion of Genesis, with all its\\nfascinating afBliations with the cosmogonies of\\nthe great lettered peoples of antiquity. The re-\\nmainder of the book is of a dififerent order and\\ndemands different treatment.\\nIt remains for me to acknowledge my debts, if\\nI cannot pay them. It will be evident to any one", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "Preface\\nin the least familiar with these subjects that such\\na work as this, to possess any value, cannot be\\noriginal in a strict sense. On the contrary, I have\\nfelt it a duty to keep constantly before my mind\\nthe opinions of the great scholars in this field\\nand to state my problems on lines laid down by\\ngood usage. Though I have spared no effort to\\nreach the freshest and best sources, I trust that I\\nhave follovv^ed no writer in a servile spirit, and\\nespecially that I have appropriated no man s\\nthoughts without due acknowledgment. The\\nfirst conception and the general plan of these\\nstudies were suggested to me by Lenormant. In\\ntheir execution, while I have consulted Lenor-\\nmant constantly, the age of his great work has re-\\nmoved the temptation to adopt too many of his\\nbrilliant suggestions. On the general criticism\\nof the Pentateuch and of Genesis I have used\\nHupfeld, Dillmann, Addis, Holzinger, and es-\\npecially Bacon s masterly treatise. Of the com-\\nmentators I owe most to the incomparable Dill-\\nmann, though I have received valuable aid from\\nHolzinger s Genesis, Budde s Urgeschich-\\nte, and from various works of Wellhausen. The\\nfirst volume of the long-expected Encyclopaedia\\nBiblica appeared after these lectures were com-\\nposed and delivered. In revising certain state-\\nments, however, I have taken advantage of a few\\nof its luminous and clean-cut articles, even when\\nI could not altogether agree with them. (See\\nespecially Cherubim and Ararat. I can-\\nnot help expressing my astonishment that the ill-\\ntimed parsimony of the publishers has clothed this\\ngreat work, which is destined for many years to\\nbe the authoritative Bible dictionary of the Eng-\\n(x)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "Preface\\nlish language, in type which seems expressly de-\\nsigned to rob poor students of what eyesight they\\npossess. Its poverty of archaeological illustra-\\ntion also places the Encyclopaedia Biblica years\\nbehind such works as Roscher s Lexikon der\\nGriechischen und Romischen Mythologie/ the\\nPolychrome Bible, and even behind little hand-\\nbooks like Riehm s.\\nAs regards the Polychrome Bible, I have used\\nit when I could, and have deeply regretted that\\nits commentary on Genesis is still forthcom-\\ning. In all things pertaining to Babylonian\\nmythology, and on several concrete problems of\\nGenesis, I have found Dr. Jastrow s admirable\\nReligion of Babylonia and Assyria helpful\\nand suggestive. I gratefully acknowledge my\\nindebtedness to this distinguished scholar, not\\nonly for the benefit I have derived from his pub-\\nHshed works, but for his kindness in supplying\\nme with books from time to time, for which other-\\nwise I should have had to send across the water.\\nAs to the translations of the text of Genesis which\\nappear in these lectures, I hardly know what to\\nsay. I have performed this work with the He-\\nbrew Bible before me. I have also consulted con-\\nstantly the excellent English translation of Addis,\\nthe German versions of Kautsch and Socin, and\\nof Zunz. I have also made use of Dillmann s and\\nDelitzsch s accurate renderings, and, less fre-\\nquently, of Lenormant s translation of the eadier\\nchapters. The resulting translation, which I\\nthink is quite accurate, cannot be assigned to any\\nsource. For translations from the Babylonian\\ncuneiform I have depended chiefly on the works\\nof Schrader, Jensen, Jeremias, Jastrow, and\\n(xi)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "Preface\\nZimmern. In all matters pertaining to classical\\nmythology I have employed, where I could,\\nRoscher s superb Lexikon, which now nearly\\nreaches the letter P. When Roscher failed me, I\\nwas obliged to fall back on Creuzer s good old\\nSymbolik. On matters of archaeology and art\\nI have used Perrot and Chipiez s great Histoire\\nde I Art dans TAntiquite, and sometimes Mas-\\npero.\\nThe fulness of treatment accorded to the Flood\\ntradition I trust will be justified by the impor-\\ntance and interest of the subject. The explana-\\ntion I have offered of the origin of the Flood\\nmyth, which really differs radically from Brin-\\nton s, is, so far as I am aware, original, and I feel\\nsome curiosity as to how it will be received. I\\nhave no doubt I shall be accused of tearing down\\nwith one hand what I have built with the other.\\nBut, after long consideration of the problem of\\nthe Flood myths of mankind, I am satisfied that\\nthey are the product of many factors, and that\\nboth mythical and naturalistic elements helped to\\nform them. The Flo\u00e2\u0082\u00ac4.. table of Schwarz ap-\\npended to this volume, wh-kh he compiled from\\nthe works of Lenormant ai^d Andree, is es-\\npecially valuable on account of Schwarz s ethno-\\nlogical notes. In this connection I must also\\nmention the interesting notes on P^iser s frag-\\nment prepared for me by Dr. George Barton,\\nof Bryn Mawr. [See Appendix L]\\nLastly, may I express the hope that this work\\nmay be not unacceptable to sincere lovers of the\\nBible Inadequate as its treatment of the great\\ntheme is, and however numerous the errors into\\nwhich I may have fallen, I am certain that the\\n0^)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "Preface\\ngeneral method I have pursued is correct and\\nfruitful. Happily, the time is past when we\\nneed fear that the Bible will suffer any real harm\\nfrom the most serious investigation or from the\\nmost searching comparison with other sacred lit-\\neratures, provided such comparisons be made in\\na fair and honorable spirit. The sun in heaven\\nhas not shone less brightly since we learned that\\nit is composed of the same elements that form\\nthe other celestial bodies. It still remains our\\nsun, the source of Hfe to us. And the Bible is\\nstill our Bible, a book apart, to which the noblest\\ntributes have been paid by the profoundest schol-\\nars. Among these, alas I cannot for an instant\\nplace myself. Yet the study of the Bible has been\\none of the chief solaces of my life, and it was with\\nthe desire and hope of communicating the same\\nhappiness to others that I undertook this work.\\nAt this late date of the world s history, unless the\\nlong-silent voice of Israel should again be raised\\nto God, and the inexhaustible genius of that peo-\\nple which alone is strong enough to grapple with\\nthe Infinite, should deliver itself from worldly\\nsnares and return to its obvious destiny, it is im-\\nprobable that any more Sacred Books will be\\nwritten. Hence the unique importance of those\\nwhich we possess. Let those to whom these\\nwords seem extravagant reflect that no book is\\naccounted by us of divine revelation which was\\nnot written by a Jew, and that from the day when\\nthe Hebrew element disappeared from the Chris-\\ntian Church inspired works ceased to be pro-\\nduced. Why did the stream of inspiration which\\nhad maintained itself so long and so gloriously\\nunder the Old Dispensation dry up so suddenly\\n(xiii)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "Pr\\nEFACE\\nunder the New? Because there were no more\\ngreat Jews in the Church, and because Greek\\ngenius did not know the Hebrew secret of min-\\ngUng ice and fire, ardent faith with cool intelU-\\ngence, by which man divines the incomprehensi-\\nble. The Greeks produced skeptics, and, under\\nChristian influence, they produced believers, but\\nwe should search their roll of fame in vain for an\\nIsaiah, a Jeremiah, a Job, or a Koheleth, in whom\\nthese two fundamental antitheses of the human\\nsoul attain a higher synthesis. Neither, to tell\\nthe truth, was the moral strength of paganism\\nable to sustain the crushing burden of a divine\\nvocation which Israel had borne for a thousand\\nyears, and which, having once laid down, Israel\\nhas never been willing to resume.\\nI have tried to express my deep sense of the in-\\nspiration of Genesis, not by the wearisome reit-\\neration of meaningless phrases, but by exhibiting\\nthe true and innate grandeur of the Book. There\\nis one misconception, however, against which I\\nwould especially warn younger readers. It might\\nbe supposed from the frequent comparisons I\\nhave made between Genesis and the sacred Htera-\\ntures of the Gentiles that such parallels may be\\nfound for most of the religious conceptions of the\\nOld Testament. On the contrary, from the point\\nat which these lectures close, such resemblances\\nas I have pointed out diminish rapidly, and in the\\nperiod of Israel s classical and perfect develop-\\nment, in the compositions of the great Prophets,\\nthe beggarly elements of this world fade al-\\nmost entirely. The problem of cosmogony is\\none at which all talented nations of the world\\nhave worked. In this dark field the speculations\\n(xiv)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "Preface\\nof one people have been seized on eagerly by\\nothers. But the higher problem of God and\\nhumanity was understood by Israel in a unique\\nsense. In that domain Israel is not the pupil,\\nbut the teacher from whom we must still learn.\\nAs to the sacred Hteratures of the old world,\\nwhich a too narrow sense of inspiration has\\ncaused us to undervalue, the time is at hand\\nwhen we shall perceive that we do not necessarily\\nhonor our father in dishonoring our grandfather.\\nAnd yet I confess that the more I have read in\\nthe great ethnical Scriptures, the more I am\\nconvinced of the supreme excellence of our own.\\nI express here my obligation to my wife, but\\nfor whose friendly interest and intelligent co-\\noperation this work would not have reached\\ncompletion.\\nElwood Worcester.\\nThe Rectory of St. Stephen s Church,\\nPhiladelphia, November, 1900.\\n(XV)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "List of Chapters\\nCHAPTER PAGE\\nI. A General Introduction i\\nII. Critical Survey fg\\nIII. Composition of Genesis and Character of\\nIts Narratives 36\\nIV. What Is the Book of Genesis? 55\\nV. The Eternal Problem 70\\nVI. The Creation Story 88\\nVII. The Chaos Monster in the Old Testament 127\\nVIII. Adam and Eve .148\\nIX. The Garden and the Fall 164\\nX. Eden in the Mythology of the Nations 184\\nXI. Eden in the Mythology of the Nations\\nContinued .210\\nXII. The Epic of Izdubar and the Legend of\\nAdapa 234\\nXIII. Cain and Abel 257\\nXTV. The Antediluvian Patriarchs 278\\n(xvii)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "List of Chapters\\nCHAPTER PAGE\\nXV. The Sons of God and the Daughters of\\nMen and the End of the Old World 303\\nXVI. The Two Stories of the Deluge. 323\\nXVII. The End of the Deluge. The Flood Tradi-\\ntion in Antiquity 343\\nXVIII. The Flood Traditions of Babylon 374\\nXIX. The Flood Traditions of Primitive Peoples 412\\nXX. Origin of Flood Myths of Mankind 438\\nXXI. The Physical Causes of Our Deluge. The\\nDiscovery of the Vine 466\\nXXII. The Tradition of the Tower of Babel 491\\nAppendix I. Notes on Peiser s Flood Map 523\\nAppendix II. Table of Traditions Relating to\\nthe Flood 527\\nAppendix III. Enoch 553\\n(xviii]", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "Illustrations\\nPAGE\\nThe Battle of Tiamat and Marduk 114\\nThe Serpent and the Tree 198\\nGenii and the Tree 202\\nGenii and the Tree 203\\nIzdubar and Eabani 235\\nScorpion-Men 240\\nLittle Noah s Ark Found in Vetulonia 361\\nSit-Napistim in His Ark 389\\nSit-Napistim in His Ark 391\\nBasil 514\\nBiRS-NiMRUD 515\\n;xix)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "charts\\nChaldean Temple Frontispiece.\\nxx)\\nOPPOSITE\\nPAGE\\nThe Babylonian Conception of the World log\\nThe Old Hebrew Conception of the World iii\\nMap of the City of Babylon 491\\nThe Babylonian Flood Map 523", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "The Book of\\nGENESIS\\nIN THE Light of\\nModern Knowledge\\nChapter One:\\nA General Introduction\\n1 BEGIN this discussion with a great deal of\\npleasure and with some trepidation. The\\nbook that we are to study is the oldest and,\\nin some respects, the grandest and the most\\ndifficult book of the Old Testament. Outside of\\nthe four Gospels, probably no book has influ-\\nenced the thought of the world so much as the\\nBook of Genesis. For ages it has been regarded\\nas the sacred repository, the infallible witness of\\nthose truths which man most desires to know.\\nThe reason of its vast importance is this. It deals\\nin a masterly way with the beginnings of things,\\nand the beginnings of things are always the most\\ndifficult and the most interesting. The world\\nof effects, of nature, of orderly progression, has\\nits charm and its importance, but the world\\nof causes is the peculiar domain of God and\\nof those great intelligences which endeavor to\\npenetrate the secrets of God. That is the lesson\\n0)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwhich we of the latter half of this century have\\nthoroughly learned. Auguste Comte once said\\nin an inspired moment, You can know little of\\nany idea until you know the history of that idea/\\nand Darwin showed us how to trace the history\\nof our ideas back to their origins. The best\\nthought of the latter half of this century has been\\nlittle more than a study of origins. That is why\\nthis book, the first rational attempt at a study of\\norigins, has so great a fascination for us to-day.\\nThe Book of Genesis has been studied during the\\npast fifty years as it was never studied before, and\\nits real character is understood now as never be-\\nfore. It is true that with the rise of modern\\nknowledge Genesis has been attacked on many\\nsides. It is also true that for us its ideas in the\\nfield of positive science have not the absolute\\nvalue that they once had. And yet the old book\\nhas not lost its importance. Like a huge cube of\\ngranite cut by some giant of old, it has resisted all\\nthe attacks of time. It has been overturned\\nagain and again, but it makes little difference\\nwhich face is uppermost. It is still grand, solid,\\nimposing. If this great block has been set for\\ncenturies in the path of progress to discourage\\ninvestigation and to ruin science, that is not the\\nfault of the block itself, but of the pygmies who\\nplaced it there. The Book of Genesis was not\\nwritten to impede progress and to ruin science.\\nOn the contrary, its grand opening verse, In\\nthe beginning God created the heavens and the\\nearth, as Renan says, swept away at one breath\\nthe whole brood of chimeras and mythological\\nfancies which had darkened knowledge from the\\nbeginning. Who can estimate the indebtedness\\n(2)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "Method of Treatment\\nof subsequent science to the opening verses of\\nGenesis, which laid the eternal foundation of all\\nsane thought one God, one solitary, unique\\ncause of all that happens. Heathen wisdom with\\nall its subtlety failed to apprehend that truth.\\nIn my opinion, a comprehensive and really\\nfruitful study of the Book of Genesis ought to in-\\nclude three distinct parts. First, we ought to de-\\ntermine exactly what this book is and what it\\nactually wishes to teach. Second, we should at-\\ntempt to ascertain the sources from which its\\nideas are derived, and its relation to other works\\nof the same sort. Third, we cannot altogether re-\\nfuse to ask, how do those ideas square with what\\nwe know of the universe to-day? We should\\nremember, however, that the real problem of\\nto-day is. not, are the views of Genesis scientifi-\\ncally true, but, how did they originate? Let me\\nspeak of these three points a little more fully.\\nIt is of the first importance in studying any\\nbook, and especially a scientific book, that we\\nshould know when and by whom it was written.\\nThe writings of Aristotle were marvels of wis-\\ndom in their day, but if they were to be put forth\\nnow for the first time, without any preface ex-\\nplaining when and by whom they were written,\\nthey would be regarded as the work of an ex-\\nceedingly clever lunatic. We are accustomed to\\nregard the Book of Genesis as a single composi-\\ntion, Avritten at one time, by one man; but we\\nshall see before long that the Book of Genesis is\\nnot a single composition, written at one time, by\\none man, but a collection of compositions, writ-\\nten at different times by different men, and then\\nbrought together and woven into one more or\\n(3)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nless continuous narrative. This accounts for the\\nstrange repetitions, inconsistencies, and contra-\\ndictions of the book, such as the two accounts of\\nthe creation and of the flood, and the f wo seizures\\nof Sarah, over which men Hke Ingersoll make\\nmerry, and which would be inexcusable if the\\nwhole book were the work of a single mind. To\\nmake this important matter plainer, let me cite an\\nalmost parallel case in Christendom.* In the lat-\\nter half of the second century a celebrated Chris-\\ntian writer named Tatian, then living in Rome,\\nmade up his mind to reduce our four Gospels to\\none Gospel. It seemed to him that one con-\\ntinuous narrative of the Saviour s life, containing\\nall the events preserved by the four Evangelists,\\nwould be more satisfactory than four accounts,\\nthe very number of which might give rise to some\\nsuspicion. He called his work the Diates-\\nsaron, i.e., Harmony of the Four. This book\\nbecame very popular in the church until, on ac-\\ncount of the heresies of which Tatian was sus-\\npected, its use was prohibited, and for centuries\\nthe book was lost. Within the past twenty-five\\nyears large portions of this work have been re-\\ncovered, and they are in the hands of scholars.\\nNow, in this Diatessaron of Tatian, in which\\nhe tried to weave the strands of the four Gospels\\ninto one continuous story, we find the same con-\\ntradictions, the same repetitions and inconsisten-\\ncies that we find in the Book of Genesis. Only,\\nhappily for us, the four Gospels are still extant,\\nso that we can say with certainty how those\\ncontradictions and discrepancies arose. This\\nT borrow this illustration from Bacon s Genesis of Genesis,\\npp. 5 and 6.", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "Three Narratives in One\\nstory, we say, is the result of Tatian s attempt\\nto piece together such a chapter of St. Matthew\\nwith such a chapter of St. John. That repeti-\\ntion occurred because the story had already been\\ntold by St. Mark; but Tatian, for certain rea-\\nsons, wished to incorporate into his book the\\ncorresponding chapter of St. Luke. So, in\\nreading his book we are not puzzled at all. We\\nknow what it is\u00e2\u0080\u0094 an attempt to combine four\\nnarratives in one narrative. In the Book of\\nGenesis a similar attempt was made by some un-\\nknown writer, who lived long before the time of\\nChrist, to reduce at least three narratives to one\\nnarrative. He had all three before him, and he\\nwas able to choose what seemed to him the finest\\npassages and to weave them together into one\\nbook. In doing this he was obliged, of course,\\nto take a great many liberties to make them fit\\ntogether, and even then he was not able to pre-\\nvent the seams and stitches from being seen, and\\na good many contradictory statements from slip-\\nping in. Unfortunately, the three original\\nsources have completely perished, and yet they\\nwere so different from each other in style, in the\\nrange of their ideas, in their names for the Deity,\\netc., that scholars have little difficulty in separat-\\ning the book into its original parts. The new\\npolychrome edition of Genesis will have these\\nthree principal narratives, or documents, as they\\nare called, printed in three colors, so that the\\nreader can tell at a glance which one he is reading.\\nI might compare the book as it stands in our Bible\\nto a cord of three strands, red, white and blue.\\nAs we look at the cord the effect is confusing,\\nhere a little red, there some white, and there some\\n(5)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nblue. But when we get hold of the ends of those\\nthreads and unravel them, we find that they are\\ncontinuous, and if we persevere we have at last a\\nred thread, a white thread, and a blue thread,\\neach slighter and less imposing than the whole\\ncord, but independent. It is criticism that enables\\nus to unravel the Book of Genesis, and when our\\ntask is done, we find that these three documents\\nrun not only through the Book of Genesis, but\\nthrough the whole Pentateuch and the Book of\\nJoshua as well. I shall not attempt to prove this\\nnow. I do not even ask you to believe it because I\\nsay it is true. I ask you to believe only what you\\nsee with your own eyes and what your own judg-\\nment pronounces true. I touch on these mat-\\nters here merely to chow you that Genesis is\\nby no means so simple a book as most persons\\nsuppose, and that to know what kind of book\\nit is, one must study it with the utmost care.\\nIt is just because so few persons have had the\\npatience to study this work as it ought to be\\nstudied that many of the criticisms passed upon\\nit are more childish than the passages they\\ncriticise. If the Book of Genesis pretended to be\\na literal history of the world, from the day of\\ncreation down to the descent into Egypt, like\\nhistories written to-day in the age of printing\\nand newspapers, then there might be some rea-\\nson in asking who was Cain s wife, or why Cain\\nwas afraid that everybody would kill him when\\nthere was no one in the world but his father and\\nmother or how it happened that after Isaac was\\nborn of parents so old that his birth was a sort of\\nmiracle, Abraham became the father of several\\nother sons in the ordinary course of nature. But", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "Futility of Ignorant Criticism\\nas soon as we get a true insight into the char-\\nacter of the composition, we shall see that these\\ninconsistencies are mere trifles, and only to be\\nexpected. I shall notice the discrepancies when\\nthey are forced on our attention, but I shall not\\ngo out of my way to seek them. Hundreds of\\nsceptics have had their little scoff at the Book of\\nGenesis on account of matters of this kind. But\\nscoffs do not advance science nor make people\\nreligious. Any strolling vagabond, as Strauss\\nsays, can stuff a turnip into the town pump.\\nNeither, on the other hand, shall I try to prove\\nthat every statement of Genesis, nor even its gen-\\neral theory of the origin of the world, is in com-\\nplete agreement with the most recent results of\\nmodern science. I gladly leave that task to those\\nwho are sufflciently ignorant both of science and\\nof Genesis. My own firm conviction is that the\\nBook is so great in itself that it does not need\\nthe assistance of maladroit apologists.\\nThe second part of a comprehensive study of\\nGenesis, as I conceive it, would consist in a com-\\nparison of its account of the creation and the\\norigin of man, with similar accounts contained\\nin the sacred books of other nations, and es-\\npecially in the books of other members of the\\nSemitic family. I know that there are persons\\nwho shrink from a comparison of our religion,\\nin any stage of its development, with the re-\\nligions of the world, but I think that their\\ntimidity is based on scepticism rather than on\\nfaith. In what a situation, they say, should we\\nfind ourselves if we discovered that other re-\\nligions possessed our conceptions and our history\\nin an older, purer, richer form than our own. and\\n_", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwe were forced to admit that our narratives, if\\nnot inferior, were borrowed from the Gentiles,\\nrather than inspired by God! These persons\\nreally undervalue their religion, and perhaps they\\nwill never know how the religion of the Bible is\\ninspired until they compare it with the best that\\nman has been able to do and to think outside the\\nreligion of the Old Testament and of Chris-\\ntianity. Just as a man who knows only his own\\nlanguage does not know that very well, so he\\nwho knows only his own religion knows it imper-\\nfectly. But to those who are acquainted with\\nthe historical sciences I need not say that this\\nmethod of prudent and fruitful comparison has\\nalmost recreated the past.\\nNot to be tedious, there is the wonderful\\nliterature of Babylon unearthed by the labors\\nof men like Rawlinson and Layard and George\\nSmith. At first it was a mere puzzle slabs of\\nclay covered with arrowheads and combinations\\nof arrowheads in every conceivable arrangement.\\nGradually a little light begins to dawn. A proper\\nname here and there is identified, a town whose\\nname is known supplies a few more signifi-\\ncant signs. Certain words like prepositions,\\narticles, etc., recurring again and again, are iden-\\ntified. So it goes on, the light constantly grow-\\ning stronger and broader, until at last we find\\nourselves in the possession of a new language, or\\nrather of an old language, which, but for the\\npatient toil of these illustrious men, would have\\nperished forever. Dictionaries of what is left of\\nthe old cuneiform inscriptions are slowly and\\npainfully prepared. Their grammar, syntax, and\\nthe etymology of their words are studied, and the\\n(8)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "Value of Prudent Comparison\\nlanguage turns out to be an old Semitic idiom,\\nconnected by a thousand ties with Hebrew on\\nthe one side and with Arabic on the other.\\nArmed with this powerful instrument, schol-\\nars return to the inscriptions, and now, instead\\nof unintelligible arrowheads on clay, they find\\nthoughts. The sign has become significant.\\nThe intelHgence of men of to-day is confronted\\nwith the intelligence of men who lived and died\\nthousands of years ago. Is not the world the\\nricher\\nBut, you say, how do these discoveries affect\\nthe Book of Genesis? In this way. We find\\nhere a sister people that has preserved a good\\nmany of the old family traditions, a people that\\ndeveloped a great national literature, which is ab-\\nsolutely independent of the Hebrew Hterature,\\nbut which reflects a great deal of light upon it.\\nIn that literature there is also a Book of Genesis,\\nor rather chapters of such a book. Here also\\nwe find an account of the creation of the world\\nand of man, perhaps also of the fall of man, and\\na wonderful account of the deluge.\\nAlthough this is not the place to enter mi-\\nnutely into the details of the comparison, I may\\nbriefly indicate some of its grand results. First\\nof all, we find the genuine antiquity of our Book\\nof Genesis abundantly vindicated. Before the\\nBabylonian inscriptions were thoroughly under-\\nstood, and after the Mosaic authorship of Gene-\\nsis had been generally abandoned and it was ad-\\nmitted that the Book in its present form was not\\nolder than the Exile, a good many persons con-\\nceived the idea that the contents of Genesis were\\nnot very old. In other words, it was believed\\n_", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthat Genesis was a manufactured book, com-\\nposed throughout by anonymous writers in an\\nadvanced stage of Hterary art. If this were\\ntrue, it would be a book of Httle vakie. Its\\ntraditions and wonderful stories, instead of\\ncoming down to us hoary from an immeasur-\\nable past, would be but the inventions of clever\\nJews who lived only five hundred years be-\\nfore Christ. It was imagined, therefore, that\\nGenesis was not a sincere work. The very archaic\\nsimplicity of its limpid and matchless style was\\nthought to be a piece of literary embellishment,\\nHke the forged poems of Ossian, palmed off on\\nan unsuspecting age by an older and more skilful\\nMacpherson.\\nBut that dream, which would simply destroy\\nGenesis for most persons, is shattered into frag-\\nments by the discovery of the Genesis of Babylon,\\nwhich George Smith called the Chaldean Gen-\\nesis. For here, unmistakably, we have a series\\nof narratives coined at the same mint, though of\\ninferior metal, and representing the oldest tradi-\\ntions of another Semitic people, entirely inde-\\npendent of the Hebrew traditions. But this may\\npoint to the fact that there was a time, before\\nthese two branches of the Semitic family had dif-\\nferentiated so much that they ceased to speak and\\nto understand each other s language, when the\\nold traditions of creation, the flood, etc., were the\\ncommon possession of the peoples which after-\\nward became Hebrews and Babylonians. When\\nwe reflect on the great age of the Babylonian\\ncivilization, which scholars believe they can trace\\nin the ruins of buried cities to at least four thou-\\nsand years before Christ, we see that criticism,", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "The Old Dilemma\\nfar from diminishing the real age of the Book of\\nGenesis, has added to its age hundreds if not\\nthousands of years.\\nThere is one other general result of this com-\\nparison of the Hebrew and the Chaldean Genesis,\\nwhich is of even greater interest. If Moses, in\\nthe fourteenth century B.C., really wrote the\\nBook of Genesis in the sense of being the actual\\ncomposer of its pages without the assistance of\\ntradition,^ we should be confronted with a very\\nsingular dilemma. Either God miraculously\\nsupplied Moses with exact knowledge of the\\npast history of the world, which of himself he\\ncould not know, or else Moses wrote these\\nthings entirely out of his own head. In the first\\ncase, the scientific errors of the book, its con-\\ntradictions and repetitions, would be unthink-\\nable and in the second case, the work would lose\\nalmost all its value and importance. The histori-\\ncal parts, narratives of events which happened\\nthousands of years before Moses birth, would\\nfall to the ground.\\nThat is the old dilemma which has inspired\\ncenturies of fruitless strife, and which has caused\\nthe Book of Genesis to stand, as I have said, hke\\na great cube of granite, in the way of all rational\\nprogress. As long as we state the problem in\\nthese terms, it is impossible to escape. Hundreds\\nof pseudo-scientific works have been written to\\nprove that the scientific statements of Genesis are\\nliterally correct, but they all either do utter\\nviolence to the real Genesis, or they fail to es-\\ntablish their point. Nevertheless, the Book of\\nGenesis is true it is a sincere and noble composi-\\ntion that retains its grandeur and nobility and", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nits inestimable religious value in spite of all\\nscoffers, from Voltaire to Ingersoll. It is\\nplain, then, that we must state the problem\\nin a different way, in order, on the one hand,\\nto free ourselves from the crushing despot-\\nism of authority that has reared itself under\\nthe name of this book; and, on the other hand,\\nin order to hold the real sacredness and inspira-\\ntion of Genesis high and inviolate. It -is one of\\nthe greatest services of the historical, compara-\\ntive, or, if you please, the critical method of\\nstudying the Scripture that it enables us to state\\nthe problem and to solve it in a way that causes\\nthe old bitter antithesis of Genesis and Progress,\\nof revelation and science, almost to disappear,\\nwithout the sacrifice of anything we ought to de-\\nfend. As soon as we see that for many of the\\ngreat narratives of Genesis there are correspond-\\ning narratives in Chaldea whose resemblance is\\nunmistakable, it becomes absurd to suppose\\nthat those narratives originated with Moses or\\nwith any later Hebrew writer. Certainly the\\nChaldeans did not borrow their accounts of crea-\\ntion from the Hebrews, and it is the opinion of\\nmany of the best scholars that the Hebrews did\\nnot borrow their accounts from Chaldea at the\\ntime of the Exile. Therefore, it is not impos-\\nsible to suppose that they are two forms of the\\nsame primitive Semitic tradition, immeasurably\\nolder than most other portions of the Old Testa-\\nment a point, however, on which I do not in-\\nsist. This also does away with the magical,\\nmiraculous conception of inspiration which has\\ndone so much harm both to religion and to sci-\\nence. If every word, if every statement of our\\n-_", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "Inspiration of Genesis\\nGenesis is miraculously inspired and so is per-\\nfectly true, then at least some words and some\\nstatements of the Chaldean Genesis are inspired\\nin the same way, for they are practically identical.\\nBut, you ask, what does all this lead to Where,\\nthen, does the inspiration of Genesis come in In\\nwhat is it superior to those old Babylonian crea-\\ntion myths, which may be interesting to scholars,\\nbut which no Christian of good sense would\\ndream of making part of his religion?\\nThat question does not trouble me. I have\\nread many of those writings, and when in the\\ncourse of these studies you read them and com-\\npare them point by point with our Genesis, it\\nwill not trouble you. You will see then wherein\\nthe inspiration of Genesis consists. Inspiration,\\nbreathing in, the drawing of God into the heart,\\nis one of the most difftcult words in language\\nto define, so difficult that no definition of in-\\nspiration has ever been accepted by the Church.\\nIt is the vibration of the chord in the heart,\\na peculiar quality of composition easy to feel,\\nbut hard to describe. Let us take the only other\\nparallel case we possess, the inspiration of genius.\\nShakespeare, as is well known, derived the ma-\\nterials out of which he spun many of his great\\ndramas from certain old chronicles and collec-\\ntions of tales, such as the Gesta Romanorum.\\nAnything barer, more meagre, than these old\\nchronicle narratives it would be hard to conceive;\\ncertainly there is nothing inspired in them.\\nYet, outside of himself, that was all Shakes-\\npeare had. But those simple events, passing\\nthrough the alembic of his imagination, become\\nportentous and symbolical. Those forgotten\\n(13)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmen and women, recreated by him, and risen, as\\nit were, from the dead, infused by his mighty pur-\\npose and animated by his passion, hve again a\\nHfe a thousand times more real than when they\\nwalked the earth. Their lives, through him, at-\\ntain a universal, a permanent significance. In\\nthem human life seems brought to a focus, and\\non their strength or weakness the final outcome\\nof life seems to be staked. This we feel and\\nadmit to be inspiration. Somehow, Shakespeare\\nhas breathed in the universal spirit, and he com-\\nmunicates that living breath to his creations,\\nmaking them live and partake to a certain extent\\nof universal and enduring life. That is why they\\nhave the power to move us all.\\nSo, with even higher and grander genius, the\\nauthor or the authors of the Book of Genesis,\\nhaving found these old Semitic traditions, which\\noriginally were a mere mass of mythology, in-\\nvested them with a form of classic and flawless\\npurity, and gave them a significance which has\\ntouched the heart of the better part of humanity,\\nand changed the meaning of the world. If out\\nof all the myriad books of earth the chapters\\nwere to be selected that have borne the great-\\nest fruits, the first would be those of the Sermon\\non the Mount, the second would be the first chap-\\nter of Genesis. The only safe test with which I am\\nacquainted of the inspiration of any book is the\\neffect that book is able to produce. Up to this\\nmoment it has never been given to charlatanism\\nor mediocrity to produce anything permanently\\ngreat. Judged by its results, we must pro-\\nnounce the Book of Genesis to be one of the\\nmost truly inspired works ever produced, and\\n_", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "Attitude of Other Inspired Writers\\nyet a work not above criticism nor free from\\nerror.\\nWhat encourages me to believe that this view-\\nis correct is the fact that the Book of Genesis was\\nplainly regarded in this light by other inspired\\nwriters of the Old Testament. The man, who-\\never he was, who put the book into its present\\nform and gave it, so to speak, its finishing\\ntouches, could not have regarded the account\\nof creation in the first chapter as final or as liter-\\nally binding in all respects. If he had so re-\\ngarded it, he certainly would not have added a\\nsecond account in the very next chapter con-\\ntradicting the first in so many particulars. The\\nprophets and the writers of many of the psalms\\nnever imagined that God had taken any man\\ninto His confidence so far as to tell him the whole\\nscheme of creation exactly as it happened. On\\nthe contrary, they have their own ideas on that\\nsubject, which differ widely from the plan laid\\ndown in Genesis. Job specifically and pointedly\\nrepresents God as saying\\nWhere wast thou when I laid the foundations of the\\nearth\\nIf thou hast skill, declare\\nWho took the measure thereof,\\nOr who stretched the line upon it\\nWherever are the columns of her foundations sunk\\nOr who laid her corner stone\\nWhen the morning stars sang- together,\\nAnd all the sons of God shouted for joy\\nLet me take only one other instance. The nar-\\nrative of the Book of Genesis which has had the\\nmost profound effect on the thought of the world\\nis the story of the Fall. Out of this simple, poetic\\n05)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nnarrative has grown up a vast dogma, which at\\nlast includes in its domain a large part of human\\nlife. Millions of men have accepted it literally,\\nand have shaped their lives accordingly. Espe-\\ncially since the Protestant Reformation has the\\nhideous doctrine of a total depravity supposed to\\nspring from Adam s transgression rested like a\\nnightmare on the conscience of a large part of\\nChristendom. It is true, we are growing restive\\nunder that doctrine now. It seems to us strange\\nthat God, having made everything so good,\\nshould be completely defeated by Satan at the\\nvery outset, and we cannot help fearing if He was\\nso defeated once. He may be again, and all the\\nresults of human sacrifice and toil may be lost in a\\nsingle day. The doctrine that man was created\\nperfect is also opposed to all that science is able\\nto teach us in regard to human history, which\\nshows us man slowly struggling upward from the\\nhumblest terrestrial beginnings. So, as Chris-\\ntians and believers in the Bible, but also as sane\\nand rational men, we hardly know how we ought\\nto regard this matter. But then, in the very mo-\\nment of our perplexity and doubt, the compara-\\ntive method I have already spoken of suggests\\nthat we should inquire how the saints of old, the\\nprophets and other inspired men of God regarded\\nthis narrative, and to our surprise we find that\\nthey did not take it literally at all. They under-\\nstood far better than we its true significance.\\nThey did not associate the sinfulness of man with\\nthe transgression of Adam. In fact, outside the\\naccount of Genesis, the sin of Adam is only once\\nmentioned in the Old Testament, where Job\\ncasually says If I covered my transgression\\n06)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "Human Sin Not Referred to Adam\\nlike Adam by hiding mine iniquity in my\\nbosom. Even Cain is not bound in any way\\nto follow his father s example, for the Lord said\\nunto Cain, Sin lurks before the door and its de-\\nsire is for thee, but thou shouldst rule over it.\\nAnd yet the Old Testament has enough to say\\nof sin. God saw that the wickedness of man\\nwas great in the earth, and that every imagina-\\ntion of the thoughts of his heart was only evil\\ncontinually. There is indeed an original sin,\\nbut it does not spring from the transgression of\\nAdam. It lies in the carnal nature of man. Be-\\nhold, I was shapen in wickedness and in sin did\\nmy mother conceive me. The prophets also\\nspeak of a Fall. But it is not the fall of Adam,\\nit is Israel s fall from its ideal and destiny. Be-\\nhold the Lord s hand is not shortened that it can-\\nnot save, neither is his ear heavy that it cannot\\nhear. But your iniquities have separated be-\\ntween you and your God, and your sins have hid\\nhis face from you that he will not hear. But\\nnow, O Lord, thou art our Father, we are the\\nclay and thou our potter, and we all are the work\\nof thy hand. f The prophets trace the root of\\nthis sinfulness to many things, to the people s\\nlove of worldly possessions, which makes them\\nproud and forgetful of God, to sensuality and\\nlust and to the fear of man but to Adam, or to\\nhis sin, not once. J\\nThis certainly encourages us. It shows us\\nthat it is possible to reverence the Book of Gen-\\nesis without being slavishly bound so as to take\\nliterally what was written poetically and figura-\\nJob, xxxi. 33. f Isaiah, Ixiv. 8.\\nSchultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie, 677 ff.", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nlively. It gives us faith in our method, and\\nhope that we can truly appreciate and reverence\\nthis noble book without giving up all that, as\\neducated men and women, we are bound to\\nbelieve of the workings of God in the history\\nof the world. In other words, we may hope that\\nthe antagonism between Revelation and Reason\\nis not final.\\n(i8)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0048.jp2"}, "49": {"fulltext": "Proof of Composite Authorship\\nChapter Two:\\nCritical Survey\\nIN the first chapter two assertions were made.\\nFirst, that the Book of Genesis in its present\\nform was not written by Moses and second, that\\nit is not a single composition, written at one\\ntime by one man, but a combination of at least\\nthree different compositions, combined like a\\ncord twisted out of three threads into one more\\nor less continuous narrative. I shall now try to a\\ncertain extent to make those assertions good. It\\ndoes not seem to me necessary at this point to\\ngo very minutely into the analysis of the book,\\nbut I want to lay the main facts of the compo-\\nsition of Genesis so plainly before you that\\nyou will be able to recognize the three different\\ndocuments when we shall have occasion to study\\nthem later on. A great deal of the proof in re-\\ngard to Genesis applies just as well to the compo-\\nsition of the whole Pentateuch and to the Book\\nof Joshua, for the same documents run through\\nthem all. But as Genesis is the book we are now\\nstudying, I shall pay particular attention to that,\\nand take most of my examples and illustrations\\nfrom Genesis alone.\\nBefore we begin this examination, it may be\\nworth while to cast a rapid glance over the study\\nof the Pentateuch, and to learn a little about the\\n0^9)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0049.jp2"}, "50": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmen who have brought our knowledge of this\\npart of the Bible to its present condition. I shall\\nmention only a few of the earHer names. The\\nfirst writer, so far as I know, to throw doubt on\\nthe Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, was the\\ncelebrated Jewish grammarian, Aben Ezra,* who\\ndied about 1168. Aben Ezra s criticism is so\\nshrewd and yet so guarded that it is worth quot-\\ning If you penetrate the secret of the Twelve\\n[last verses of Deuteronomy containing the death\\nof Moses], also and Moses wrote, also and the\\nCanaanite was then in the land, and in the\\nmountain of the Lord it shall be seen, and his\\nbedstead \u00c2\u00bbvas an iron bedstead, you will discover\\nthe truth. What truth will be discovered Aben\\nEzra is careful not to say; but he dismisses the\\nmatter with the significant hint, He who under-\\nstands will hold his tongue. But when we turn\\nto the passages he indicates we find that they are\\namong the very ones which have caused later\\nwriters to doubt that Moses wrote the Penta-\\nteuch. The last twelve verses of Deuteronomy,\\ngiving an account of Moses death, could not\\nvery well have been written by him. True, some\\nJewish writers pretend that Moses described his\\nown death scene in advance, but to the most\\northodox Christian commentators that has\\nseemed too absurd. And Moses wrote raises\\nthe question which is still disputed, whether writ-\\ning was known to the Hebrews at the time of\\nMoses. The expression, and the Canaanite was\\nthen in the land, would certainly seem to have\\nbeen written at a time when the Canaanite was in\\nthe land no longer, in other words, centuries after\\nComment, on Genesis, xii, 6.", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0050.jp2"}, "51": {"fulltext": "Early Critics\\nthe death of Moses. This is still regarded as a\\nvery strong argument. Very similar is the ex-\\npression, In the mount of the Lord it shall\\nbe seen, taken from the account of the sacrifice\\nof Isaac. The whole sentence runs, As it is\\nsaid to this day, Jehovah-jireh, that is, in the\\nmount of the Lord it shall be seen, in other\\nwords, a long time after. Lastly, Aben Ezra\\nmentions the iron bedstead of Og, the King of\\nBashan, which the author of Deuteronomy says\\nwas still preserved at his time, evidently because\\nhe did not believe that men at the time of Moses\\nslept on iron bedsteads.\\nFor a long time these sagacious hints of Aben\\nEzra were not followed up. In the seventeenth\\ncentury, Thomas Hobbes, the celebrated Eng-\\nlish philosopher, mentions them in the Levi-\\nathan; and Spinoza, the great Jewish pan-\\ntheist, went so far dS to question the Mosaic\\nauthorship of most of the Pentateuch, for which\\nhe was stabbed three times at the door of the\\nsynagogue and obliged to leave his home.\\nThe next great step was taken in the last cen-\\ntury by the French physician, Jean Astruc, to\\nwhom belongs the credit of discovering the\\nsecret of Genesis that had been hidden for so\\nmany ages. Astruc did not doubt that Moses\\nhad composed the Pentateuch, but he believed\\nthat Moses had before him several older docu-\\nments which he combined. He was led to this\\nconclusion by the most important discovery that\\nup to the present time has been made in this sub-\\nject. Astruc called attention to the fact that in\\nthe Book of Genesis two different names are em-\\nChap, xxxiii.\\n(21)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0051.jp2"}, "52": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nployed for the Deity, Jehovah and Elohim, and\\nthat these two names are not used indiscrimi-\\nnately, but with entire consistency, one document\\nalways using the word Elohim (God), and the\\nother always using the word Jehovah. This clue\\nin the hands of later scholars has been used with\\nentire success to separate these two documents.\\nIf you would satisfy yourself on this point, read\\nthe first chapter of Genesis down to the middle of\\nthe fourth verse of chapter second, and then the\\nremainder of the second chapter, and you will\\nnot doubt that they are two entirely independent\\naccounts. The styles are different and the ideas\\nare also different. The first uses Elohim and the\\nsecond Jehovah (Jahveh) Elohim,\\nI shall not attempt to carry this short list much\\nfurther, though there is one other name I wish\\nto mention. Every science has its martyrs and\\nthe science of the Pentateuch has had its share.\\nBut one of the most unjust actions ever per-\\nformed in the name of this collection of writings\\nwas the deposition of John Colenso, English\\nBishop of Natal, in South Africa, only a little\\nmore than thirty years ago. It is admitted on all\\nsides that Bishop Colenso was a wise and good\\nman. Many of his mathematical writings were\\nfavorably received at Oxford and Cambridge.\\nHis sermons were edifying and it was confessed\\neven by his enemies that he had labored with\\ntrue apostolic zeal in his difficult field in South\\nAfrica. Colenso, however, was a great scholar,\\none of the greatest students of the Bible the Eng-\\nlish Church has produced. He wrote a fine work\\non the Pentateuch, whose value is now gen^\\nerally admitted. But at the time Colenso wrote,\\n(II)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0052.jp2"}, "53": {"fulltext": "Bishop Colenso\\ncomparatively little was known of these subjects\\nin England, and what was known was not liked.\\nIt must be admitted also that his criticism was\\nvery negative. Colenso was cited to return to\\nEngland for trial. The trial seems to have been a\\nmere farce, as few of his critics were in a position\\nto know whether Colenso s views were true or\\nfalse. But Colenso was deposed from his see by\\nthe vote of forty bishops, who afterwards tried to\\nhave him excommunicated.* Against this fresh\\ninjustice, however, the Low Church bishops, to\\ntheir great credit, protested, and the sentence\\nwas not carried out. I ought to add that Co-\\nlenso, so far as I know, is the only man of promi-\\nnence in the English Church, of late years, to\\nsuffer punishment for wishing to study the Old\\nTestament with open eyes. As soon as the\\nChurch of England fairly grasped the situation\\nand saw the reasonableness of the views put for-\\nward by Bishop Colenso, with her infallible good\\nsense and love of justice she allowed no one else\\nto be persecuted for holding them. Dr. McCon-\\nnell, in his article on Matthew Arnold, in the\\nChurchman, goes so far as to say that Co-\\nlenso s views on the Pentateuch are now held by\\nnine-tenths of the English bishops. How far this\\nis true I do not know, but there is every reason\\nto believe that in a general way they are the views\\nof Dr. Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, and\\nso long as he, or men of like liberality, continue\\nto shape the destinies of the English Church, it is\\nI have been informed by a personal friend of Colenso s that\\nthe Bishop s popularity was such that the verdict of the English\\ncourt was disregarded in South Africa and he remained in peace-\\nable possession of his cathedral in Natal until his death.\\n(23)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0053.jp2"}, "54": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nimprobable that sincere and devout scholars will\\nbe interfered with. Nothing has done the Epis-\\ncopal Church more good, nothing has attracted\\nto her more rninds of the better class, than her\\nwise and enlightened tolerance. The most sui-\\ncidal policy a church at the present age of civili-\\nzation can pursue is to expel and humiliate her\\nscholars. Every church that is to hold its own\\nfor the next century, God knows will have need\\nof them. Every scholar who comes to us because\\nhe is persecuted and driven out of his own\\nchurch, brings others in his train and we gain not\\nonly in numbers, but in reputation for tolerance\\nand good manners, which will bring us thou-\\nsands more.\\nThe names of other writers in this field I will\\nnot mention, as they would be unknown to most\\nof us. But I should like to say that the historical,\\nor, if you please, the critical method of studying\\nthe Bible, is not a fad in the hands of a few special-\\nists. It is part of a universal method of studying\\nthe history of the past which will never be aban-\\ndoned so long as history remains a science. Its\\nresults are now incorporated into every first class\\nwork of reference, such as the Encyclopaedia Bri-\\ntannica it has evoked the labors of the most dis-\\ntinguished scholars of all lands, and its results\\nhave risen slowly into a science that is now recog-\\nnized the world over. As regards the Book of\\nGenesis, the general result of a century s work is\\nsomething like this. Moses is not believed to be\\nthe author of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch\\nis not the composition of any one man, nor of any\\none time. It does not, however, consist of a\\nnumber of fragments thrown together hap-\\n(^4)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0054.jp2"}, "55": {"fulltext": "Repetitions in Genesis\\nhazard, but, on the contrary, of three or four\\nseparate documents or compositions, well de-\\nfined and for the most part easy to detach from\\none another, which run through the entire Pen-\\ntateuch and the Book of Joshua. That brings\\nme back precisely to the point at which I started.\\nBut you are still waiting for the proof. Let me\\nsee if I can render it.\\nThat the Book of Genesis is not the work of\\none mind is proved, among other things, by the\\nnumerous repetitions it contains, some of which\\ncontradict each other so flatly that we are obliged\\nto choose either one or the other, but cannot\\ntake both. No good writer composes in this way.\\nAs late as the fifth chapter, after the story of the\\nCreation and of Adam has been told and dis-\\nmissed, the narrative seems to begin all over\\nagain. This is the book of the generations of\\nAdam in the day that God created man, in the\\nlikeness of God made He him. So the story that\\nAbraham on a visit to Egypt pretended that\\nSarah was not his wife, but his sister, is told first\\nin the twelfth chapter, where she was seized by\\nPharaoh, and again in almost the same language\\nin the twentieth chapter, where she was seized by\\nAbimelech, King of Gerar; and, strangely, the\\nsame story is told a third time in the twenty-sixth\\nchapter, of Isaac and Rebekah. Isaac pretends\\nthat Rebekah is his sister, just as Abraham pre-\\ntended that Sarah was his sister and Abimelech\\nsteals Rebekah just as he had formerly seized\\nSarah, and relinquishes her, just as he had done\\nbefore. Of course it may be said that the episode\\noccurred three separate times, but this is very\\nimprobable. It is also an inconsistency that\\n(25)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0055.jp2"}, "56": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nSarah, who some time before was represented as\\nninety years old, and, as the New Testament says,\\nas good as dead, should still be so beautiful as\\nto attract the attention of the whole country.\\nSimilarly, the story of Hagar s expulsion from\\nthe tent of Abraham is related twice, and each\\ntiriie her life is saved by divine intervention and\\nthe second time Ishmael, who was at least four-\\nteen years old, is represented as a little child\\nwhom Hagar carries in her arms. The first ex-\\npulsion was before Ishmael was born, the second\\nw^hen he was fourteen. So the covenant of God\\nwith Abraham is related twice, and Isaac s birth\\nis promised twice. No one ought to expect to\\nfind these stories in exactly the same form they\\nare not in the same form, and the reason why they\\nare not is because they represent two independ-\\nent traditions of the same event. The meaning of\\nIsaac s name is explained in three ways. Firstty,\\nit is Abraham who laughs secondly, it is Sarah\\nwho laughs with incredulity, though she denied\\nit and said, I laughed not and thirdly, it is\\nGod who makes Sarah laugh. And Sarah said,\\nGod hath made me to laugh, so that all they\\nthat hear will laugh with me. So the name of\\nEsau, considered as the father of Edom (red), is\\nexplained in two ways. Firstly, it is because he\\nwas red when born. Secondly, Esau said to Jacob,\\nFeed me with that red pottage, for I am faint.\\nTherefore his name was called Esau. In the\\ntwo accounts of the Flood, Noah is told in chap-\\nter sixth, Of every living thing of all flesh, two\\nof every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, and\\nin the seventh chapter, Of every clean and un-\\nclean beasts thou shalt take to thee by sevens.", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0056.jp2"}, "57": {"fulltext": "Inconsistencies\\nWe may also mention the great impropriety\\nof speaking of clean and unclean beasts at the\\ntime of the Flood, ages before such distinc-\\ntions had been drawn. Twice we are told that the\\nwaters were forty days upon the earth, and again\\nthat they increased for one hundred and fifty\\ndays. In the eleventh chapter, just after a long\\naccount has been given of the dispersion of the\\ndescendants of Noah to all parts of the earth, the\\nstory goes back to the Tower of Babel, and im-\\nagines all men still living together and speaking\\none language, and the story of the confusion of\\ntongues is told to show how they came to sep-\\narate. In the sixth chapter, the limit of man s\\nage is fixed at one hundred and twenty years, but\\nsoon after, Noah is represented as nine hundred\\nand fifty years old when he died, and many of his\\ndescendants are from two hundred to five hun-\\ndred years old.\\nI might go on multiplying these instances in-\\ndefinitely, but, not to be wearisome, I will men-\\ntion only the most striking example of all the\\ntwo accounts of Creation. In the first chapter,\\nanimals were madebefore man; and in the second\\nchapter (beginning at verse 5), animals were\\nmade after man, and were brought to him to re-\\nceive their names. In the first chapter plants and\\ngreen herbs were made long before man. In the\\nsecond chapter, verse 5, the Hebrew reads, Not\\na shrub of the field was then upon the earth, and\\nnot a herb of the field had sprouted, because\\nJehovah Elohim had not yet made it to rain upon\\nthe earth, and there was no man to cultivate the\\nground. And Jehovah Elohim formed man of\\nthe dust of the ground, and breathed in his nos-\\n(27)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0057.jp2"}, "58": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ntrils the breath of Hfe, and man became a Hving\\nbeing.\\nIn the first chapter, the dry ground rises out of\\nthe waters in the second, the whole earth is dry\\nbecause it has not rained. In the first chapter\\nman and woman were made together. And\\nElohim created man in His own image, in the\\nimage of Elohim He created him, male and fe-\\nmale created He them. In the second chapter\\nman was made first, and woman afterward was\\ntaken out of his side. In the first chapter, creation\\noccupied six separate days; in the second chap-\\nter, only one day. Lastly, in the first chapter,\\nElohim is the Creator in the second, it is Jeho-\\nvah Elohim who makes all things.\\nExamples of this sort prove conclusively that\\nthe Book of Genesis, as it lies before us, was not\\na single composition, the work of one mind. On\\nthat supposition, these contradictions and varia-\\ntions would be unthinkable, unless the author\\nwrote with reckless haste and cared nothing\\nabout contradicting himself half a dozen times\\nin as many sentences. But as soon as we get the\\nright point of view, it becomes very natural.\\nThere were at least three narratives lying before\\nthe author who gave the book its present form,\\nall venerable, all beloved, and all telling much the\\nsame story in different ways. What more natural\\nfor this author, wishing to incorporate into his\\nwork as many of these priceless stories as pos-\\nsible and knowing that the people were accus-\\ntomed to hear these old narratives in. different\\nforms, than to sacrifice just as little of them as\\nhe could, and even to admit two or more versions\\nLenormant s translation.\\n(28)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0058.jp2"}, "59": {"fulltext": "Mosaic Authorship Questioned\\nof the same story, where all seemed to him beau-\\ntiful and to teach good lessons These examples\\nare fatal to the supposition that Moses or any\\nother one man was the author, in a literal sense,\\nof this book. But at the same time, may it not\\nhave been Moses who collected the various tra-\\nditions and who gave the Book of Genesis the\\nform in which it now lies before us That is an\\nentirely different question, but it is an important\\nquestion, and I do not think I need apologize for\\ndiscussing it with you at some length. Let us see\\nfirst what reason we have for associating Moses\\nwith this work at all.\\nThe Book of Genesis does not bear the name of\\nMoses. Nowhere in the book is it said that\\nMoses was its author. In the later books of the\\nPentateuch, where Moses is mentioned, it is al-\\nways in the third person. We have seen already\\nthat Genesis was not the work of one mind. It\\nremains to ascertain if it could have been\\nbrought to its present form at the time of Moses.\\nNow the only way to determine such a question is\\nto observe whether the book contains allusions\\nto events that happened after Moses death. If\\nso, the book, in its present form, must be later\\nthan Moses. If, for example, we were trying to\\nfind out whether George Washington wrote a\\ncertain work, we should have to proceed in ex-\\nactly the same way. If the book contained no\\nreference to events after the year 1799, when\\nWashington died, it would not be historically\\nThe Jewish tradition that Moses is the author of the Penta-\\nteuch rests on the late authority of Philo, Josephus and the\\nTalmud. From the synagogue this belief passed into the New\\nTestament, and thence into Christian versions of the Bible, and\\ninto the old church lists of the books of the Old Testament.\\n(^9)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0059.jp2"}, "60": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nimpossible that Washington wrote it. But if\\nthe book referred to cities which were not then\\nin existence, or to Presidents who followed\\nWashington, or to the Mexican War, no one\\nin his senses could imagine that the book was\\nwritten by the Father of his Country. In the\\nBook of Genesis, it is true, there are no such glar-\\ning anachronisms as those I have mentioned, and\\nyet there are a good many little indications\\nthat the book in its present form was put to-\\ngether many centuries after the death of\\nMoses.\\nWhen we read, for example, that when Abra-\\nham went to Sichem the Canaanite was still in\\nthe land, we can hardly doubt that this passage\\nwas written at a time when the Canaanite was no\\nlonger there and when people had even forgot-\\nten that he once dwelt there. Or when in the\\nthirty-sixth chapter it is said, These are the\\nkings who reigned in Edom, before there reigned\\nany king over the children of Israel, we should\\nmost naturally suppose that this chapter was\\nwritten after kings were known in Israel, at the\\nearliest, in the time of Saul. In the same way,\\nJoseph says to the butler of Pharaoh, I was\\nstolen away out of the land of the Hebrews,\\nmeaning, of course, the land of Canaan. Now\\nthat land was not in any sense the land of the\\nIsraelites until some time after the death of\\nMoses. Abraham, we read in the fourteenth\\nchapter, pursued them to Dan. Dan was the\\nchief city of the tribe of Dan when the children of\\nIsrael had divided the land long after Moses\\ndeath. Before that it was called Lachish. Again,\\nthe author who gave the book its present form\\n(3^)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0060.jp2"}, "61": {"fulltext": "Argumekt from Laws\\nundoubtedly lived in Canaan. To him the coun-\\ntry east of Jordan is beyond Jordan. The west he\\nalways describes as toward the sea, and the south\\nas toward the desert. To him the sun rises from\\nbeyond Jordan, whereas to Moses it would set\\nbeyond Jordan. Add to this that Moses father-\\nin-law is called by three different names, Reuel,\\nJethro and Hobab. Whatever were Moses re-\\nlations with his father-in-law, it is improbable\\nthat he did not know his name. All this becomes\\nmuch plainer and more convincing if, instead\\nof confining ourselves to single passages in Gen-\\nesis, we take the Pentateuch as a whole and we\\nhave a perfect right to do so, since those who\\nclaim that Moses was the author of Genesis\\nalso claim that he wrote the whole Penta-\\nteuch. And they are right to this extent, that\\nthe same documents we find in Genesis run\\nthrough the whole Pentateuch. This is a much\\nmore satisfactory and interesting task, although\\nit is a shghtly different one. In the later books of\\nthe Pentateuch, in Exodus, Deuteronomy and\\nLeviticus, we find a highly organized system of\\ncivil and religious law, and elaborate rules for\\nworship and ritual which purport to have been\\ndelivered by Moses. Were those laws known to\\nanyone for hundreds of years after Moses? Were\\nthey enforced? That is a very simple question\\nand easily answered, and its answer ought to be\\nconclusive. The Constitution of the United\\nStates, for example, was framed in the year 1787,\\nand finally ratified in the year 1789, March 4th.\\nNow if anyone seriously told you that he had\\nreasons for believing that the Constitution of\\nthe United States was in effect at least a hundred\\n(31)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0061.jp2"}, "62": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nyears before that date, you would naturally say,\\nShow me some proof that it was in effect at this\\ntime. And if, on reviewing the history of the\\ncolonies during the eighteenth century, you\\nfound no indication that anyone knew of the Con-\\nsitution, but rather that men constantly violated\\nits prescriptions without being aware that they\\nwere breaking the supreme law of the land;\\nif judges and the governors of the colonies\\nshowed no signs of ever having heard of the Con-\\nstitution, you would regard that, I presume, as\\nsufficient proof that the Constitution was not\\nthen in existence. You may think this a strong\\ncomparison, but really it is not too strong. The\\nwhole Book of Leviticus, and to a certain extent\\nDeuteronomy, rest on the assumption that\\nJehovah can be worshipped acceptably only in\\none place; that outside this supreme sanctuary\\nno altar might be built, no incense rise, no sacri-\\nfice might be offered, and that in this sanctuary\\nno one but the anointed sons of Aaron might\\nserve, assisted by the Levites. Nobody else might\\neven enter the holy place the stranger that\\nCometh nigh shall be put to death and to build\\nan altar to God anywhere else is an act of the\\nhighest sacrilege. Of all this the older history\\nknows nothing at all. Samuel, the little Eph-\\nraimite boy, was accustomed to sleep in the sanc-\\ntuary. He lies down to sleep in the temple of the\\nLord, where the ark was, before the lamp of God\\nhad gone out. David was accustomed to enter\\nthe holy place whenever he chose; and Samuel,\\nElijah and Elisha, far from thinking that there\\nwas only one sacred place where God could be\\nworshipped acceptably, worshipped God freely\\n_", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0062.jp2"}, "63": {"fulltext": "Argument from Sacrifice\\nand built altars to Him wherever they hap-\\npened to be. Elijah rebuilds the altar on Carmel\\nand mourns to God that men have cast his\\naltars down. We can only say, therefore, that\\nthese great prophets could have known nothing\\nof the commands of Leviticus and Deuteronomy\\nwhich they constantly violated. In the Book of\\nExodus, moreover, it distinctly says, An altar of\\nearth thou shalt make unto me, and in every place\\nwhere I record my name I will come unto thee\\nand bless thee.\\nIt is very much the same with regard to sac-\\nrifice. In Exodus and Leviticus, the most minute\\nrules are laid down regulating the sacrifice of\\nanimals and religious feasts. Sacrifice is as-\\nsumed to be the highest form of worship that\\nGod enjoined upon Moses. If there is one thing\\non which these books insist, it is the constant of-\\nfering of sacrifice. Therefore it almost takes our\\nbreath away when we read in the prophet Jere-\\nmiah, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of\\nIsrael, add burnt offerings to your sacrifices and\\neat ye flesh [i.e., eat them], for I spake not unto\\nyour forefathers nor commanded them in the day\\nI brought them out of the land of Egypt concern-\\ning burnt offerings or sacrifices, but this thing I\\ncommanded them, saying. Hearken unto my\\nvoice and I will be your God and ye shall be my\\npeople.\\nAlso Micah, vi. 6-8, Wherewith shall I come\\nbefore the Lord, and bow myself before the high\\nGod? Shall I come before Him with burnt of-\\nferings, with calves of a year old Will the Lord\\nbe pleased with thousands of rams or with ten\\n*Jer. vii. 21-23.\\n(33)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0063.jp2"}, "64": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first\\nborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body\\nfor the sin of my soul He hath shewed thee, O\\nman, what is good; and what doth the Lord re-\\nquire of thee but to do justly, to love mercy and\\nto walk humbly with thy God?\\nAlso Amos, V. 21, I hate, I despise your feast\\ndays, and I will take no delight in your solemn\\nassemblies. Yea, though ye offer me your burnt\\nofferings and meat offerings, I will not accept\\nthem neither will I regard the peace offerings of\\nyour fat beasts. Take away from me the noise\\nof thy songs for I will not hear the melody of thy\\nviols. But let judgment roll down as waters and\\nrighteousness as a mighty stream. Did ye bring\\nunto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness\\nforty years, O house of Israel\\nAlso Isaiah, i. 11-12, To what purpose is the\\nmultitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the\\nLord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams,\\nand the fat of fed beasts, and I dehght not in the\\nblood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.\\nWhen ye come before me, who hath required this\\nat your hand, to trample my courts It may be\\nsaid that these great prophets only condemn sac-\\nrifice because it is not attended by moral reforma-\\ntion. But if they were aware of these books of\\nthe Pentateuch, nine-tenths of which are taken\\nup with enjoining sacrifice on divine authority,\\nunder the threat of terrible punishment, how\\ncould they assert that Jehovah had never com-\\nmanded it, or inquire ironically when and where\\nJehovah had ever demanded it? In other words,\\nmen like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Micah knew noth-\\ning of the existence of a large part of the Penta-\\n(34)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0064.jp2"}, "65": {"fulltext": "Legal Codes Require Revision\\nteuch but, if they did not know it, as Bacon per-\\ntinently asks, who did\\nLastly, a general statement of principles like\\nthe Magna Charta or the Constitution of the\\nUnited States may stand for centuries with but\\nfew modifications, because it is so general and\\nabstract; but a positive code of civil, criminal\\nand canon law requires to be modified con-\\nstantly to meet the changing conditions of society\\nas they arise. A code of laws unchanged for five\\nhundred years would be a dead letter to any liv-\\ning people. Hence we cannot suppose that the\\nlaws of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus,\\nwhich were actually in effect from the fifth cen-\\ntury, were composed by Moses nine hundred\\nyears before.\\nFor a clear and explicit statement of the critical questions\\ntreated in this lecture, I refer the reader to the excellent work of\\nBacon, Genesis of Genesis, chap, ii.\\n(35)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0065.jp2"}, "66": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Three\\nComposition of Genesis and Character of Its\\nNarratives\\nA GREAT part of our first two chapters was\\ntaken up in showing that the Book of Gen-\\nesis as it stands to-day is not a single composi-\\ntion, the work of one mind, but a compilation, a\\nweaving together of at least three narratives into\\none narrative. I have called it a cord composed\\nof three strands. The time is come, if our work is\\nto be solid and in any sense scientific, for you to\\nsee this with your own eyes. I cannot help re-\\ngretting that the polychrome edition of Genesis\\nis not yet in print. If we could see the Book of\\nGenesis resolved into its parts on a printed page\\nif we could see our red thread, our white thread,\\nand our blue thread separated from one another\\nand displayed, so that without any difficulty we\\ncould study each one and compare one with an-\\nother, it would not only be much easier for us\\nto believe in their existence, but we could not\\nhelp noticing their peculiarities for ourselves.\\nLet me, however, attempt to do in a rough way\\nwhat the polychrome Genesis will do in an infi-\\nnitely better way. There is one thing, however,\\nfor which I am very anxious that is, to be under-\\nstood. I shall therefore sacrifice a great deal in\\norder to be clear and simple. I know from ex-\\n(36)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0066.jp2"}, "67": {"fulltext": "Proofs of Composite Authorship\\nperience that these subjects are very difficult to\\ngrasp for the first time.\\nI suppose all persons who read the Bible at all,\\neven if they do not read it very carefully, must\\nhave been struck by the complete difference of\\nstyle and order of ideas they encounter in passing\\nfrom one chapter of Genesis to another. Open-\\ning the book at random, my eye falls on the inimi-\\ntable story of the murder of Abel. I see at once\\nthat it is an exquisite piece of literature. It\\nwould be hard to find in a few words a character\\nmore vigorously and finely depicted than Cain s.\\nThe whole tragedy is enacted before our eyes.\\nWe see him, sullen and lowering with jealousy,\\nfollow Abel into some lonely place. We see the\\nsavage, murderous resolution quickly embraced\\nand more quickly carried into effect. We hear\\nthe shriek of Abel as he falls dying to the ground,\\nand the earth drinks up the blood of the first\\nvictim of human violence. The Lord ap-\\npears with His question, Where is Abel thy\\nbrother? implying that He has seen the awful\\ndeed. Cain tries to carry it off with a defiant air,\\nvery much as we turn away those who accuse us\\nof wrong. Am I my brother s keeper? Then\\nGod shows Cain that the eternal secrecy on which\\nwe all count has deceived him. What hast thou\\ndone? The voice of thy brother s blood crieth\\nunto me from the ground, and soon all Cain s\\nbold defiance is turned into abject fear. God\\ncurses him, whereas for Adam s sin He had only\\ncursed the ground, and affixes to him for all time\\nthe mark of Cain. In every fibre \u00c2\u00a9f this\\nsombre story we feel the hand of a great artist, a\\nmaster in the art of expression, and a man of such\\n(37)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0067.jp2"}, "68": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nknowledge of human nature and of such ele-\\nvated moral views that the best writer among us\\nto-day could not touch his story without injur-\\ning it. That little narrative is classical; it is a\\nmasterpiece so perfect that to-day we shudder as\\nwe read it.\\nI read along a few verses and my eye is caught\\nby a little poem. It is the sword song of Lamech\\nAnd Lamech said unto his wives,\\nAdah and Zillah, hear my voice.\\nYe wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech.\\nFor I have slain a man for wounding me,\\nAnd a young- man for bruising me.\\nIf Cain avenged himself seven fold,\\nTruly Lamech seventy and seven fold.\\nIt seems to be the voice of an inhabitant of the\\nstone age that is singing this murderous little\\nchant. Some hairy, savage cave dweller, armed\\nwith a stone club, is chanting his crimes aloud to\\nthe delight of his two half-human wives, Adah\\nand Zillah. Of the deep religious feeling and\\nlofty morality of the story of Cain, with its in-\\ntense respect for human life, there is not one\\ntrace. Lamech shouts with cannibalistic joy\\nover the fact that he has killed two men. He\\ndeclares himself superior to Cain, who has\\nkilled only one, and he promises himself the pleas-\\nure of killing seventy-five more. Of remorse, of\\nthe thought of God, there is not a hint, and we\\nfeel instinctively that this little savage, if he ever\\nexisted, never heard of the God who spoke to\\nCain s conscience.\\nNow those are two stories taken, probably,\\nfrom two of our documents; both old, but the\\nstory of Lamech I think all will feel is the older.\\n__ _ _ _", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0068.jp2"}, "69": {"fulltext": "Lamech s Song and Genealogy\\nAs a matter of fact, that strange little song is in all\\nprobability the oldest thing in the Bible and one\\nof the oldest pieces of human composition. It\\ncomes down to us like those rude pictures, so full\\nof life, of an extinct mammoth or a woolly ele-\\nphant, scrawled by some savage on the wall of his\\nden ten thousand years ago, worthless artistically,\\nbut of inestimable value in determining the past\\nhistory of our race.\\nI read only a few verses further and my eye\\nfalls on a third passage entirely unlike the other\\ntwo Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and\\nbegot a son in his own image after his own like-\\nness, and called his name Seth, and the days of\\nAdam after he begot Seth were eight hundred\\nyears, and he begot sons and daughters. And\\nall the years Adam lived were nine hundred and\\nthirty years, and he died. So it goes on to Seth,\\nand from Seth to Enos, and from Enos to Cainan,\\nand from Cainan to Mahalaleel. So it goes on\\nthrough Jared and Enoch, and Methuselah who\\noutstripped them all in Hving nine hundred and\\nsixty-nine years, and ends, oddly enough, with\\nthis same Lamech, who is here represented as the\\nfather of Noah.\\nI think almost anyone can feel that this\\npassage is entirely different from the story of\\nCain or the song of Lamech. The style, in the\\nfirst place, is very peculiar. It is the dry style of\\nthe annahst. He has certain formulas which he\\nuses over and over again. All his heroes do the\\nsame thing they beget children, and they die at\\na very advanced age. This passage is not moral,\\nand it is not immoral it is not poetry, and it is not\\nhistory. In short, it is nothing but an example of\\n(39)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0069.jp2"}, "70": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthat peculiar species of flora so highly prized by\\nmany in our days a genealogical tree.\\nBut now I find, although I was not aware of it\\nwhen I set out, that I have cited specimens of two\\nand perhaps of the three different documents of\\nthe Book of Genesis. The story of Cain was told\\nby the Jehovist the story of Lamech was pos-\\nsibly told by the writer we call the Elohist, and\\nthe genealogical tree is certainly the work of the\\nPriestly Writer, whose book we call the\\nPriests Code.\\nIt would be wrong, of course, to try to con-\\nstruct the characteristics of these three writers\\nfrom only three fragments taken by chance, yet\\nthere are several important facts found here that\\nare worth noticing. In the first place, the Jehovist\\nis not only a fine and interesting writer, but a man\\nof deep spiritual insight. He knows how to de-\\nscribe the nature of sin, the hardening of con-\\nscience and the awakening of conscience, in a\\nmost telling way, which is all the more impressive\\nbecause it is told in the form of a story that no\\nchild could ever forget. He is a master of the\\nresources of language, and a profoundly moral\\nman. There is another fact of great importance.\\nHe uses the name of Jehovah or Jahveh alone.\\nCain brings the fruit of his ground as an offering\\nto Jahveh. Jahveh has respect to him. Jahveh\\nsays to Cain, Why art thou wroth? So on\\nthrough the whole story.\\nThe song of Lamech is not so satisfactory. It\\nis absolutely unique, and we are not certain that it\\nwas originally contained in the work of him we\\ncall the Elohist. But supposing it to be his work,\\nwe see that it is wholly different from the work of\\n__ _", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0070.jp2"}, "71": {"fulltext": "Authors Compared\\nthe Jehovist. It is not moral, it is not religious,\\nand apparently it is not history. It is just a little\\npiece of folk-lore which would strike the attention\\nof a writer who was intent on preserving the tra-\\nditions of his people. But there is one important\\nfact in this story which we must not overlook.\\nLamech knows the history of Cain very well. He\\n.does not take warning by its moral, and perhaps\\nas he knew the story it did not possess the same\\nform it has now. But, as we have seen, Lamech s\\nsong is very old, perhaps the oldest thing in the\\nBible therefore, the tradition of Cain s murder\\nmust be older still.\\nPassing from this to the genealogical tree of\\nhim whom we call the Priestly Writer, we notice\\nthat he also uses Elohim for the name of God, like\\nthe Elohist, but his style is so peculiar and his\\nmaterial so homogeneous that we are at little loss\\nin picking out his work. He is very careful never\\nto use the word Jehovah in the Book of Genesis.\\nHe waits until God makes himself known to\\nMoses in Exodus. In the sixth chapter of Exo-\\ndus we read God spake unto Moses and said, I\\nam Jehovah and I appeared unto Abraham,\\nIsaac and Jacob by the name God Almighty (El\\nSchaddai), but by my name Jehovah was I not\\nknown to them. The Jehovist, however, does\\nnot take this view. Speaking of Enos, the\\ngrandson of Adam, he says, Then began men\\nto call on the name of Jehovah. There are one\\nor two other things I wish to call attention to.\\nThe Priestly Writer s style is simple, and, at times,\\ngrand and impressive, but very dry. His history\\nis entirely unlike the lively, warm, highly colored\\nstory of Cain. He loves to relate the genealogies\\n(41)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0071.jp2"}, "72": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nof families, like the one we have just read. In so\\ndoing he constantly uses the same language.\\nThat helps us to discover him. Let me give you\\none example. Again and again he says, This\\nis the book of the generations of Adam. These\\nare the generations of the heaven and the earth\\nwhen they were created, These are the genera-\\ntions of Noah. In speaking of Adam he says,\\nAdam begat a son in his own likeness after his\\nown image. We turn back to the first chapter of\\nGenesis and read in almost the same words, God\\nsaid, let us make man in our own image after our\\nHkeness; God created man in His own image.\\nSo that we are sure it was this Priestly Writer\\nwho wrote the most wonderful chapter of our\\nbook, and one of the most wonderful pages man\\nhas ever penned the first chapter of Genesis.\\nHaving thus introduced you to the three prin-\\ncipal sources which together make up our Book\\nof Genesis and all the Pentateuch as well, with the\\nexception of Deuteronomy, I wish now to char-\\nacterize them a little more broadly and to show\\nhow much, or rather how little, we know of their\\nauthors. Of the men themselves, indeed, we\\nknow almost nothing. If their works ever bore\\ntheir names, the names have utterly disappeared.\\nThe Priest s Code runs through the Penta-\\nteuch and forms a considerable part of the books\\nof Exodus and Leviticus. As the legal and ritual\\nparts of those books were not known to early\\nhistory or to the prophets, it is safe to infer that\\nthe Priestly narrative in its present form is not\\nvery old. The Book of Leviticus, e.g., as a\\nbook, is later than the Prophet Ezekiel, who died\\nabout 572 B.C., and probably as late as Ezra (444", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0072.jp2"}, "73": {"fulltext": "Priestly Writer\\nB.C.). That does not prevent the contents of the\\nbook from being very ancient, an important fact\\nwhich we shall see further illustrated when we\\nstudy the first chapter of Genesis. The chief in-\\nterest of this writer, as we should expect from the\\ncompiler of Leviticus, is in the laws, institutions,\\nand customs of Israel, and he loves to explain\\ntheir origins. He tells us the story of the first\\nSabbath, when God rested from all His work.\\nHe tells us how God made the rainbow to appear\\nin the cloud as a token of his covenant with Noah.\\nHe wishes to explain the origin of circumcision,\\nbut he is confronted with the fact that many\\nother tribes besides the IsraeHtes practised it, so\\nhe is constrained to refer it back to Abraham\\nthat it may appear that the nations supposed to\\nhave descended from Abraham learned circum-\\ncision from him. Although this Priestly Writer\\nsometimes deals with history, it is chiefly for the\\nsake of accounting for certain laws or customs.\\nEven in his inimitable first chapter of Genesis he\\ndoes not tell the story of creation out of love for\\nnatural science, but in order to show what ar-\\nrangements were made for man, and by what\\nmeans the chosen people were gradually formed,\\nand from what noble. God-fearing men they were\\ndescended. Accordingly he is very much inter-\\nested in family history, which sometimes contracts\\nto a mere thread. We see in his writings none of\\nthe warmth of feeling of the Jehovist. He pre-\\nsents few interesting anecdotes; he paints few\\ngreat characters. One feels that he is always\\nin a hurry to get through, but is prevented by his\\ninnumerable repetitions. His language is dry,\\nstiff and legal, with the frequent reiteration of\\n(43)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0073.jp2"}, "74": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ncertain favorite forms of expression. We can\\nalways tell when a new chapter of his work begins\\nin Genesis, for he always introduces it in the same\\nway, These are the generations of Adam,\\nThis is the genealogy of Noah, etc.\\nOn the other hand, his views of the Deity are\\nvery elevated, if somewhat cold. He is an abso-\\nlute monotheist. Elohim is the unique cause of all\\nthat exists. The few slight traces of older forms\\nof belief distinguishable in the first chapter of\\nGenesis are there only because he did not wish to\\ndo too much violence to traditions as old as the\\nhills, and we maybe thankful that he did not ruth-\\nlessly destroy them, for, as we shall soon see, they\\ngive us a world to think about. We feel the dif-\\nference at once in passing from the Priestly nar-\\nrative of the first chapter of Genesis to the Je-\\nhovist s account in the second chapter. The Je-\\nhovist s story is warmer, more picturesque, more\\nanthropomorphic, but it fails in sublimity and in\\nthe absolute simplicity of logic and of language\\nthat makes the first chapter sui generis. Elohim\\ncreates one thing after another in a perfectly log-\\nical sequence by His word. There is the same\\nmonotony and paucity of expression which we\\nalways observe in the Priest s Code, but the story\\nis so short and the thought. so grand that the style\\nsustains it. In the first chapter the point of view\\nof the writer is with God Himself in space. What\\nwe lose in richness of color and in variety of form\\nis more than made up by the grand simplicity of\\noutline which meets our eye at this height. The\\nJehovist, elsewhere so superior to him, and whose\\nstory at once becomes fraught with tremendous\\ninterest as soon as he reaches the moral life of", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0074.jp2"}, "75": {"fulltext": "Compositions of Priestly Writer\\nman, in his account of creation is distinctly in-\\nferior. Instead of ascending to heaven with Elo-\\nhim, he makes his Jehovah descend to earth.\\nJehovah is in creation, not above it. He has to\\nwork with his hands, fashioning man out of clay\\nlike a maker of images, taking a rib out of Adam s\\nside. He cannot create by a mere fiat. In fact,\\nthe first account, the story of the Priestly Writer,\\nso far outshines the second, the work of the Jeho-\\nvist, that we almost forget that two accounts\\nexist.\\nFor the rest, the Priestly Writer holds aus-\\ntere and simple views of God. The God who\\nmakes coats for men, comes down and converses\\nwith them familiarly, sups with Abraham and\\nmakes Sarah laugh, is not his Creator, whom he\\ncarefully shields from every suspicion of famil-\\niarity. He even goes so far as to avoid all men-\\ntion of angels and dreams, and, true to the prin-\\nciple laid^ down in Leviticus of one supreme\\nshrine and one altar, he avoids all mention of the\\nold shrines and sacred places of Canaan which\\nthe other two writers love to associate with the\\nlives of the patriarchs.\\nThe principal passages in Genesis from his pen,\\nbesides the first chapter, are\\n1. The genealogies of the ten antediluvian\\npatriarchs and the genealogies generally.\\n2. The story of the Flood, except some verses\\nwritten by the Jehovist.\\n3. Possibly the strange fourteenth chapter\\nrelating Abraham s war with Chedorlaomer and\\nhis allies, and the episode of Melchizedek, King of\\nSalem, which, however, has a very foreign sound.\\n4. God s covenant with Abraham by circum-", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0075.jp2"}, "76": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ncision, the promise of Isaac, the purchase of the\\ncave of Machpelah, and a very brief account of\\nthe famihes of Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob.\\nAll we can say of the author himself is that he\\nused the old narratives in the peculiar way we\\nhave described, and that in all probability he was\\na priest in Jerusalem, living at a much later time\\nthan the Elohist and the Jehovist. Judging\\nfrom his part in the work of Leviticus, he lived\\nnot much before 450 B.C.\\nThe tw^o remaining narrators, the Elohist and\\nthe Jehovist, as a rule are easy to distinguish in\\nGenesis on account of the different names they\\nemploy for the Deity, but they are not so easy\\nto describe, as they resemble each other far\\nmore than either resembles the Priestly Writer.\\nOn the whole, we may say that the Elohist, while\\na sincerely religious writer, is less exclusively\\nso than the Jehovist. He is also very much\\ninterested in the traditions and legends of his\\npeople, for which the Priestly Writer cared ab-\\nsolutely nothing. He has preserved many names,\\nsuch as Eliezer, the steward of Abraham; Poti-\\nphar, the Egyptian master of Joseph Deborah,\\nthe prophetess, etc. He likes to recount old\\nlocal traditions, like the story of the heap of\\nstones Laban and Jacob erected as a witness\\nof their friendship, and he tells us what each\\none called it. He is careful to inform us how\\nmany pieces of silver Jacob paid for the piece of\\nground he bought from the children of Haran.\\nHe is very fond of associating old landmarks\\nwith important acts in the lives of the patriarchs,\\ne.g., Jacob s dream of the ladder, and tlie stone he\\nset up at Bethel to mark this event. He recounts\\n(46)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0076.jp2"}, "77": {"fulltext": "Characteristics of Elohist\\nwithout the least hesitation Jacob s strange meet-\\ning with the Mahanaim the host of God s angels\\nwhich the Priestly Writer assuredly would\\nhave suppressed. He relates the charming story\\nof Jacob s love for Rachel, which so occupied his\\nthoughts that seven years seemed but a few days\\nin passing. He also tells how Laban deceived him\\nby substituting Leah, which makes us doubt\\nwhether Jacob could have loved Racliel so much\\nafter all. He also composed certain portions of\\nthe story of Joseph. The parts of this story that\\nmost interested the Elohist are those weird and\\nbizarre dreams which come from his pen, and are\\nof the very stuff that dreams are made of. The\\nsingular dreams of the butler and baker which\\nJoseph so cleverly explained, the vine with the\\nthree branches wliose grapes the butler pressed\\ninto Pharaoh s cup, the basket of bake-meats\\nwhich the birds lifted up and which implied that\\nthe unlucky butler s head would soon share the\\nsame fate, Pharaoh s uncanny dream of the fat\\nand lean cattle, on which so much is made to de-\\npend, are his creations. He also paints for us\\nmany pleasing pictures of family life in the olden\\ntimes, the free, grand life of patriarchal days,\\nand he draws fine portraits of those splendid\\ngrave men, wandering like little kings from place\\nto place, with their numerous wives, their chil-\\ndren, whom they dearly loved, their camels, their\\nflocks, and their slaves. He tells the story, per-\\nhaps the most touching in the Old Testament,\\nof Abraham s wilhngness to sacrifice his child\\nto God, and he shows us also how, after Abra-\\nham s faith had been tried to the uttermost, the\\ngrand, ennobling conviction comes to him that\\n(47)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0077.jp2"}, "78": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nGod does not desire the sacrifice of the life He\\ngave. It is precisely such a story as this that\\nproves the real inspiration of Genesis. It has\\nno counterpart in the literature of any other\\npeople.\\nThe work of the Elohist begins comparatively\\nlate in Genesis. Except for a few important frag-\\nments we find no trace of him before the twen-\\ntieth chapter, when he begins by telling how\\nAbimelech stole Sarah. There is every reason to\\nbelieve that his work was originally of much\\nwider scope, but the compiler of Genesis, making\\nuse of the Priestly Writer and the Jehovist for\\nthe earlier chapters, permitted that portion of\\nthe Elohist s work to perish, which is a great\\npity.\\nIn our Genesis the principal narrations from\\nthe pen of the Elohist are\\n1. The capture of Sarah by Abimelech.\\n2. The story of Isaac and Ishmael how Hagar\\nwas driven out the second time.\\n3. Abraham s covenant with Abimelech at the\\nwells of water.\\n4. The sacrifice of Isaac.\\n5. Isaac s blessing; how Jacob supplanted\\nEsau.\\n6. Jacob s dream at Bethel.\\n7. His service with Laban Leah and Rachel.\\n8. Jacob s children; how the twelve patri-\\narchs were born and named.\\n9. His return to his home, and the meeting\\nwith Esau.\\n10. Part of the story of Joseph, especially in\\nregard to his dreams and the dreams the\\nEgyptians.\\n(48)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0078.jp2"}, "79": {"fulltext": "Characteristics of Jehovist\\n11. Joseph s revelation to his brethren.\\n12. How Jacob came into Egypt.\\nIn regard to the personaHty of the Elohist Ht-\\ntle is known, and it does not seem to me that it\\nwould be worth while painfully to gather and\\ncompare the few hints he lets fall. I will merely\\nsay that he is believed to have lived in the eighth\\ncentury B.C., or more than three hundred years\\nbefore the Priestly Writer, but whether in the\\nNorthern Kingdom or in Judah is not certain.\\nWe have seen that the Priestly Writer and the\\nElohist are great, each in his own way. If any\\nproof of this statement is needed, it is enough to\\nsay that the Priestly Writer wrote the first chap-\\nter of Genesis and that the Elohist wrote the\\nstory of the sacrifice of Isaac. The Jehovist, of\\nwhom I now wish to speak, is in some respects\\nquite the equal of either, and in one respect he\\nis superior to both. He is more original. While\\nusing the old narratives freely like the Elohist, he\\nknows how to extract more spiritual truth from\\nthem. He scarcely ever tells a story for love of\\nthe story itself. In telling it he makes it throw\\nsome light on the moral life of man. We have\\nseen how little it was possible to gather from the\\nwritings of our other two authors in regard to\\nthe men themselves. They are too objective.\\nThe Jehovist, on the contrary, is intensely sub-\\njective. He is, I may say, a passionate writer,\\nhaunted by ideals. It is therefore very probable\\nthat in relating the old stock of traditions he\\nmodified them far more than did either the Elo-\\nhist or the Priestly Writer, but, on the other hand,\\nhe h as stamped them with the sign manual of a\\ngreat genius. Passing through the conscience of\\n(49)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0079.jp2"}, "80": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthe Jehovist, these old stories are freed from their\\nearthly dross and become forever living symbols\\nof the spiritual Hfe. Who knows how much\\nvirtue this man has created, or how much of our\\nmoral life we owe to the religious genius of him\\nwho for want of a better name we can only call\\nthe Jehovist\\nIn the Jehovist we meet for the first time with\\na profound philosophy of life. He is penetrated\\nwith the sense of man s sin, and he sets himself to\\ndiscover its causes. In attempting to solve the\\nproblem of the origin of man s iniquity, he wrote\\nthose chapters of Genesis which have borne the\\ngreatest fruits. As I said at the beginning, these\\nfruits are not all good, and yet who would carp\\nat a man strong enough to bind the faith of the\\nworld for nearly three thousand years, and who\\nhas caused humanity to accept the most humil-\\niating truths in regard to itself rather than doubt\\nhis word? By his short story of the Temptation\\nand the Fall he has produced effects incom-\\nparably greater than all the Councils of the\\nChurch have produced. Probably the same num-\\nber of words has never created an equal result.\\nThe philosophy of the Jehovist is eminently\\npessimistic, and it is just this philosophy which is\\nalways most popular. Schopenhauer and Von\\nHartmann are read with a passionate interest\\nwhich no one accords to Kant or Aristotle. They\\ndeal with matters we all can understand. They\\nmove our hearts, while the others only fatigue\\nour intellects; but they see only part of the truth.\\nThe Jehovist is also the author of that terrible\\nidea which it has taken millenniums to eradicate,\\nnamely, that God begrudges man knowledge,\\n(50)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0080.jp2"}, "81": {"fulltext": "His Pessimism\\nand that man s independent efforts to elevate\\nhimself and to better his condition are almost in-\\nsults to God, or at best sacrilegious efforts to pen-\\netrate into God s domain. Each step in the path\\nof progress is a crime. All that is added to earth\\nis stolen from heaven. Every onward movement\\nin the development of humanity is in defiance of\\nGod s will. Again and again God repents of\\ncreating the human race.* God wished for a\\nsingle man, who with his wife would inhabit a\\ndelicious garden forever. Man by his unreason-\\nable thirst for knowledge disturbed this scheme.\\nAccordingly he is cast out and the earth is cursed.\\nThe first town is built by the race of the accursed\\nmurderer and evildoer, Cain. God intended to\\ncreate one human race speaking one language.\\nBut men made use of the power of numbers and\\ncooperation to build the Tower of Babel in their\\nmad attempt to scale heaven itself. Accordingly\\nGod scatters them over the face of the earth and\\nconfounds their speech. The beauty of the\\ndaughters of men only served to tempt celestial\\nbeings, ^to cause the angels to leave their first\\nestate, as the Apostle Jude says, and to produce\\na monstrous race of sinners, all the thoughts of\\nwhose hearts were to produce evil continually.\\nAccordingly God resolves to destroy the whole\\nworld which He made, with the sole exception of\\nthe righteous Noah and his family.\\nIn spite of the painful melancholy of these nar-\\nrations, they possess a charm and teach a lesson\\nthat will never die. Such narratives as the Fall,\\nthe fratricide of Cain, and the Flood, under the\\nSeveral of the following sentences are quoted by memory from\\nRenan.\\n(51)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0081.jp2"}, "82": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nsimplest garb contain truths of such depth that\\nwe may explain away the myth as much as we\\nplease without affecting them in the least. Light\\nshines on the face of the abyss, and yet the deep\\nremains deep.\\nIf we look a little further into the work of the\\nJehovist we shall see that he has all the resources\\nof a very great writer, above all, power to en-\\nchain the attention and to touch the conscience.\\nHe makes free use of tradition, and yet in this\\nrespect he is, like Shakespeare, grand and un-\\ntrammelled. He passes easily from prose to po-\\netry, as when Adam first sees his wife and ex-\\nclaims\\nBone is this of my bones\\nAnd flesh of my flesh.\\nOr in the old canticle of Noah\\nBlessed be Jahveh, the God of Shem,\\nAnd let Canaan be his servant.\\nGod enlarge Japheth,\\nAnd let him dwell in the tents of Shem.\\nOr in the splendid blessing of Jacob, which is his\\nwork\\nGather yourselves together that ye may hear what shall\\nbefall you in the latter days;\\nAssemble yourselves and hear, ye sons of Jacob.\\nOrdinarily, as Renan says, in everything per-\\ntaining to the relations of the sexes, to love and\\nmarriage, the Jehovist is profound, sensitive,\\nchaste, and mysterious. The pure and idyllic\\nloves of Isaac and Rebecca, of Jacob and Rachel,\\nare his creations. He has traced for us the grand\\nconception of Abraham, the friend of God, and", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0082.jp2"}, "83": {"fulltext": "Compositions of Jehovist\\nhe has told almost the whole story of Joseph,\\nin some respects the finest, the most perfect story\\nof the Bible. How is it possible that the author\\nof such masterpieces should be unknown? The\\nsame question is now asked of the Homeric\\npoems, of nearly all the grand epics, and in short\\nof all the books produced from popular tradi-\\ntions. Books of this kind are of no special value\\nto the first generations, well acquainted with the\\ntraditions they embody, and by the time the\\npriceless character of the work is discovered the\\nname of the author has disappeared.\\nThe following is the list of the principal com-\\npositions of the Jehovist\\n1. The second account of creation. Cain and\\nAbel.\\n2. The first genealogy. The poem of Lamech\\n(doubtful).\\n3. The sons of God and daughters of men.\\n4. The second account of the Deluge. Dis-\\ncovery of the vine.\\n5. Table of Shemites. Tower of Babel.\\n6. God s promise to Abraham. Seizure of\\nSarah by Pharaoh.\\n7. The separation of Abraham and Lot.\\n8. God s covenant with Abraham. Sarah and\\nHagar.\\n9. Visit of the three angels. Destruction of\\nSodom. Lot s daughters..\\n10. Isaac and Rebekah.\\n11. Esau s repudiation of his birthright.\\nIsaac s denial of Rebekah in Gerar. Covenant\\nof Abimelech and Isaac.\\n12. Part of Jacob s deception of Isaac. Part\\nof Jacob s dream.\\n(53)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0083.jp2"}, "84": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n13. Part of the story of Jacob, Rachel, and\\nLeah. How Jacob outwitted Laban and ob-\\ntained his flocks.\\n14. Part of the story of Joseph.\\n15. Jacob s blessing.\\n(54)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0084.jp2"}, "85": {"fulltext": "Genesis a Collection of Stori\\nES\\nChapter Four\\nWhat Is the Book of Genesis?\\nWE come now to a question of importance,\\nour answer to which will determine to a\\nlarge extent our attitude toward the Book of\\nGenesis What is the Book of Genesis We all,\\nI presume, admit that it is an inspired book, but\\nwhat form does inspiration take in this book?\\nPlainly it is not a law book, it is not poetry, it\\ndoes not profess to be prophecy. What is it then\\nThere is one definition on which we shall all\\nagree. It is a narrative, or, rather, it is a collec-\\ntion of narratives. From the first chapter to the\\nlast it is just a series of stories. Beginning with\\nthe account of the Creation, through the antedi-\\nluvian patriarchs to Noah, and from Abraham\\nto Abraham s great-grandson Joseph, it is noth-\\ning but a collection of the most wonderful and\\nfascinating stories in the world. If you wish\\nproof of this, leave it to the children, who are the\\nbest judges of the merit of stories. Read your\\nboy or girl some of the best stories of Homer,\\nand then the story of the Flood or the story of\\nJoseph, and see which makes the deeper impres-\\nsion.\\nBut what is the nature of these stories? Are\\nthey history or are they something else? How-\\never we shall ultimately answer this question, I\\n(55)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0085.jp2"}, "86": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthink we shall again all agree that the narratives\\nof Genesis are very different from the history\\nthat is written to-day. The most casual reader\\nmust feel that. I pick up Green s History of\\nthe EngHsh People, and the first thing I notice\\nis that Green devotes as much space to the reign\\nof a single king as the Book of Genesis devotes\\nto the history of the world from Creation to the\\ndescent into Egypt. Plainly then, the two works\\nare planned on a different scale. A work planned\\nHke Green s and treating of the times and the\\nnations treated by the Book of Genesis would\\nconsist of at least a thousand volumes. The\\nBook of Genesis must therefore be much con-\\ndensed. We look at the book and we find that\\nthis is so. Sometimes a nation is merely named\\nand dismissed. Sometimes its whole history is\\ncontained in a few anecdotes of certain persons\\nsupposed to have founded that nation.\\nThat, however, is not the most striking peculi-\\narity of Genesis. As we read the compact chap-\\nters of Green, another still more important differ-\\nence presents itself to us. Everything in English\\nhistory occurs in a perfectly natural way. The\\ntask which Green sets himself is simply to de-\\nscribe what has happened, and to account for im-\\nportant events on purely natural grounds. Such\\nthings as the immediate interference of God,\\nimmediate messages from God, prophetical\\ndreams, etc., are never mentioned. And yet\\nGreen is very far from denying the reality\\nor power of religion. On the contrary, he\\ndevotes much time to showing the place and\\npower of the church and of religious belief. But\\nhe does not feel it necessary to call in the least su-\\n(56)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0086.jp2"}, "87": {"fulltext": "Supernatural in Genesis\\npernatural interference to show how England\\nbecame what it is or what it was in any part of\\nits history. It would be a mistake to suppose\\nthat Green is peculiar in this respect. If we take\\nany other first-class work, Hke Mommsen s His-\\ntory of Rome or Grote s History of Greece,\\nwe shall see that it is written in exactly the same\\nway so far as its attitude toward the supernatu-\\nral is concerned. We turn to Genesis, how-\\never, and we feel the difference. There God ap-\\npears to men constantly, under one form or an-\\nother. He speaks to them face to face. He\\nengages in long conversations with Abraham;\\nHe sups with him. He makes clothes for Adam\\nand Eve. He appears to Jacob in a dream. He\\ncurses one man and He blesses another. It is\\nthis element of the immediate, visible, sometimes\\ntangible presence of God, and His active inter-\\nference in the affairs of men, which makes certain\\nparts of the Bible, but by no means the whole\\nBible, so different from any other book in which\\nwe are accustomed to place confidence. If a man\\nto-day were to write the history of our late war\\nwith Spain in the style of Genesis, it would be\\npainful to us in the highest degree, and we should\\nset that writer down either as utterly deluded or\\nas a daring blasphemer.\\nOne answer, of course, is very easy. God, it\\nmay be said, does not appear to men in this way\\nnow, and He has not actively interfered with the\\nhistory of England as He formerly interfered\\nwith Noah and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.\\nThat answer may satisfy some minds, and those\\nthat are satisfied with it may remain so for a\\nlittle while longer. But I imagine that the\\n(57)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0087.jp2"}, "88": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ngreat majority of educated persons will find it\\nless easy to believe that God has changed so\\nmuch than to believe that man s views of God\\nhave changed, and that what at one time seemed\\nperfectly natural for God to do seems not only on\\nnatural grounds improbable, but on moral\\ngrounds impossible for God to do to-day.\\nThat there is nothing irreligious in this view\\nis shown by the fact that most of the inspired\\nmen of the Old and New Testaments held it\\nas firmly as we do. The Priestly Writer, the\\nauthor of the first chapter of Genesis, was very\\ncareful to suppress all immediate physical mani-\\nfestations of the Deity such as those which\\nthe Jehovist delights to recount. He would\\nnot even mention the appearance of angels,\\nand apparently he had no confidence in dreams.\\nAs we descend the stream of Old Testament\\ntradition, we find the conception of God con-\\nstantly growing purer, higher, more transcen-\\ndent and more spiritual. In the time of Adam\\nand Eve and at the time of Abraham, God is\\nsaid to have showed Himself visibly in human or\\nquasi-human form. But at the time of Moses,\\nGod was believed to appear in this way no longer.\\nAt most, Jehovah manifested His presence by\\nsome sign like the burning bush, or permitted\\nMoses to stand in the cleft of the rock and see\\nHis hinder parts in the furious, desolating whirl-\\nwind of the storm, a grand manifestation of the\\npower of nature. To see God, we are told, is to\\ndie. We descend a little further to one of the\\nearlier prophets, to Elijah, for example, and we\\nfind the idea of God still more transcendent and\\nat the same time more awful. Elijah standing\\n(58)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0088.jp2"}, "89": {"fulltext": "Gradual Elimination of Supernatural\\nupon Horeb, not far from where Moses stood,\\nand seeing the same terrible phenomena of a\\nmountain storm, declared that he found God\\nneither in the strong wind that rent the mount\\nnor in the earthquake nor in the fire, but in the\\nstill, small voice which we may yet hear. Lastly,\\nSt. John absolutely denies the reality of any of\\nthese physical manifestations of God by saying,\\nNo man hath seen God at any time. If\\nthen we suppose that God in the days of old\\nshowed Himself so familiarly, ate, drank, and\\ntalked with men, we must suppose that He was\\nmuch nearer to a man like Cain or Jacob than\\nHe was to a man like Isaiah or Jeremiah, who,\\nfar from pretending to have enjoyed any such\\nvisible manifestations of God, declared Thou art\\na God that hidest Thyself. We may even rever-\\nently say, in that case God was more immediately\\nvisible to Cain and Jacob than He was to our\\nBlessed Lord Himself. For Jesus never spoke of\\nseeing God with his eyes, but by the faith of the\\nheart. One of Christ s great claims on reason-\\nable men is that He absolutely eschewed visions\\nand dreams, and saw God only and constantly\\nthrough the inward eye of the soul.\\nThese considerations will probably have weight\\nwith thoughtful minds. But even if you reject\\nthe view I put forward that it is man and not God\\nwho has changed, I think you will agree with me\\nthat in respect to its attitude toward the super-\\nnatural the Book of Genesis differs widely from\\nhistory as it is written to-day.\\nThe third difference I notice between Genesis\\nand history as it is written to-day is that Genesis\\nis immediately and transparently religious, and\\n(59)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0089.jp2"}, "90": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthat modern history is not immediately and\\ntransparently religious. I do not mean to say\\nthat any serious and noble treatment of history\\ndoes not contain great and saving religious\\ntruth I know the contrary from my own experi-\\nence. The more philosophical history is, the\\nmore religious it is. But at the same time the re-\\nligious lessons of history are not for all. They are\\nnot transparent. They require long search, care-\\nful sifting of characters and events, and a trained\\nhistorical sense, and so the religious truths of\\nhistory reach few and affect very few. But\\nthe charm and glory of Genesis is that its re-\\nligious lessons lie transparently on the surface,\\nwhere they are visible to all and affect all. No\\none can mistake the lesson taught in the story of\\nCain and Abel. No one can fail to be impressed\\nwith the story of the Fall. We may sum this up\\nby merely saying that the immediate purpose of\\nGenesis is a religious purpose, and however it\\nattains that purpose it attains it marvellously\\nwell.\\nThere is only one other difference I want you\\nto notice between the Book of Genesis and his-\\ntory as it is written to-day, but that difference is\\nradical. If you pick up any really good modern\\nhistory you will see that the first concern of the\\nwriter is to obtain authentic sources for what he\\nwishes to write about, and by authentic sources\\nI mean the writings of veracious men who lived\\nat or near the time when the events occurred\\nwhich they undertook to narrate. Where plenty\\nof such contemporary documents exist, as, e.g.,\\nin the history of the Rebellion, history may be\\nabsolutely authentic. I do not say that history", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0090.jp2"}, "91": {"fulltext": "Sources of History\\never is absolutely authentic. There is always\\nthe personal equation to take into account, the\\nbias, prejudice, or ignorance of the historian,\\nwhich prevents a perfect history from being writ-\\nten. But at all events the materials are at hand,\\nand if the historian does not make proper use of\\nthem it is his own fault. It is very different when\\nthe contemporary records are few. Then, to\\nwrite authentic history becomes difficult, and\\nwhen the records fail altogether, when, for ex-\\nample, we go back to a time when no records\\nwere kept, and even to a time when writing was\\nunknown, we leave the field of exact authentic\\nhistory altogether and enter a field where all is\\nconjectural and all but the main facts uncertain.\\nFinally we reach the realm of ancient myth and\\nsaga, always interesting and often exceedingly\\nimportant, but which is no longer pure history,\\nbut history idealized.\\nThis is so vital a point, not only for the\\ncomprehension of Genesis, but for the philo-\\nsophical comprehension of all history, that I will\\nnot apologize for lingering over it a few minutes.\\nWe turn back to the earliest history of Britain\\nduring the last century before Christ and the first\\ncentury of our era and we find that we possess a\\ngood deal of perfectly authentic information in\\nregard to the island and its people. It was the\\nage of the Roman invasions. In the year 55 B.C.\\nthe great general and historian, Julius Caesar,\\nvisited the island and recorded his impressions\\nof it in his celebrated Commentaries. Agricola,\\nthe next Roman invader, was fortunate enough\\nto find a first-class historian in Tacitus, who de-\\nvoted a volume to his deeds. So for several hun-\\n(61)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0091.jp2"}, "92": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ndred years we know a good deal about Britain,\\nbecause we see it in the light of contemporary\\nhistory, the history of the Romans. But as soon\\nas we attempt to go behind the records of the\\nRomans, the light fails and we find ourselves\\ngroping in darkness. Of Britain before the ad-\\nvent of Julius Caesar we know but little. We can\\nbarely puzzle out the names and locations of a\\nfew tribes and form a general idea of the lan-\\nguage and customs of the people, but anything\\nlike authentic, detailed history is impossible.\\nAnd yet among all ancient nations that have\\npreserved their traditions, behind their authen-\\ntic detailed history is another history which is\\nnot authentic, in the sense that it is not a nar-\\nrative of matters of fact, but which is often more\\nwonderful, more instructive than history itself\\nbecause it represents the free genius of the peo-\\nple in its creative epoch. This is the age of myth\\nand saga. Perhaps I can better illustrate my\\nmeaning from the Greeks and Romans.\\nBehind the authentic history of Rome lies a\\nlong period of legendary or mythical history.\\nThis mythical history resembles the Book of\\nGenesis in one respect, it is full of the super-\\nnatural. Romulus and Remus are the sons of\\nMars by a human mother Rhea Silvia. When\\nthrown out into the Tiber to drown they are\\nrescued and brought up by a she-wolf. Having\\ngrown to manhood, they found together the city\\nof Rome, but a quarrel arising as to whose name\\nthe city shall bear, Romulus kills Remus some-\\nwhat as Cain killed Abel. We go back a little\\nfurther to ^neas, the ancestor of Romulus,\\nwhose adventures are described by Virgil, and", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0092.jp2"}, "93": {"fulltext": "ALUE OF IVIYTH\\nM^\\nthe supernatural element becomes stronger,\\n^neas himself is the son of the goddess Venus,\\nand his divine mother appears to him now in one\\nform, now in another. Miracles and prodigies\\ntake place. Juno is continually plotting against\\nhim. She persuades ^olus, the god of the\\nwinds, to overwhelm him in the deep, and he is\\nscarcely saved from a watery grave by the inter-\\nposition of Neptune. His dead father Anchises\\nstands beside him in a dream at night to give him\\nwarning of coming dangers. He descends into\\nHades and sees there many shades of the illus-\\ntrious dead, etc., etc.\\nIt is precisely the same in Greece, except that\\nin Homer s poems we see this old mythical le-\\ngendary lore in all its original naivete and good\\nfaith, whereas Virgil lived at a time of advanced\\nthought, when these myths were no longer taken\\nseriously.\\nNow, although we may not understand any of\\nthese stories literally, we should make a great\\nmistake if we supposed that they form an unim-\\nportant part of any literature which possesses\\nthem, or that they are not able to teach truths\\noften profounder than the truths of history.\\nWhat portion of Greek literature, or of any pro-\\nfane hterature, is superior to Homer Where do\\nwe obtain finer, truer views of Greece than in\\nthese very mythical stories? What historical\\ncharacter possesses the reality of flesh and blood\\nof Odysseus or Priam Where else do we obtain\\nsuch an insight into the domestic, moral, re-\\nligious life of the people It is not only matters of\\nfact that are true. Poetry also teaches truths.\\nDoes it detract from the parables of Jesus that\\n(^3)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0093.jp2"}, "94": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nnot one of them, so far as we know, is based on\\nfact; that is to say, on the experience of any man\\nor woman who ever lived Would they be as per-\\nfect as they are, as well able to teach a purely re-\\nligious lesson if they were limited to the mere re-\\ncital of something that had actually taken place?\\nWithout further preface, a large part of Gen-\\nesis belongs to this class of composition. As we\\nhave seen, it consists for the most part of nar-\\nratives which are not history as we understand\\nhistory, and which therefore we can only call\\nmyth and saga. Now I am extremely anxious\\nthat no one should take offence at this word, as\\nif we wished to evacuate Genesis of any of its\\nveracity or importance. On the contrary, we\\nshall see that the living, spiritual truth of the\\nbook shines clearer than ever, and at the same\\ntime we shall be relieved from the embarrass-\\nment of understanding literally those strange\\nparts of the book which we find it so difficult\\nto believe. Above all, we shall escape from the\\nimpossible task of reconciling God s govern-\\nment of the world as we know it with His gov-\\nernment of the world as it is recorded in Genesis.\\nAt all events, that is the fact. The narratives\\nof Genesis are not history as we understand it;\\nthey are largely mythical, that is to say, history\\nidealized. Does that in any way affect their in-\\nspiration or religious value? In speaking for\\nmyself I can only say, not in the least it enhances\\ntheir value. Or, as the Archbishop of Canter-\\nbury puts it, in words which have become famous,\\nWhy may not the Holy Ghost make use of\\nmyth? And the true answer is, some kinds of\\nmyth are better adapted to impart rehgious truth\\n(6^)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0094.jp2"}, "95": {"fulltext": "How Myths Arise\\nthan any history. But before we quarrel with the\\nword let us see what it means.\\nWherever in any literature we find ancient\\ntraditions, loved by the people and repeated\\nfor a long time before they are reduced to writ-\\ning, there we find myth. This rule is without\\nan exception. Whether these narratives take the\\nform of poetry or prose, their mythical character\\nis unmistakable. Every nation, therefore, that\\nhas preserved the recollection of its own remote\\npast, possesses myths, and these myths, as in the\\npoems of Homer and the Vedic hymns, are often\\nthe grandest portion of its literature.\\nLet me give you an example of the natural\\ntendency toward myth-making that exists to-\\nday. The history of every great man who has\\nprofoundly touched the heart of the people ex-\\nists in two forms. One is the form of sober his-\\ntory, of painstaking, sifting, critical biography.\\nThe other is the form which that life takes in the\\nhearts of the people, which is almost always\\ngrander, richer, more moving, but less true to\\nfact. It is this unconscious, poetic, myth-making\\nfaculty which casts their halo, their crown of glory\\naround certain heads. Balzac, in The Country\\nDoctor, makes an old soldier tell the story of\\nNapoleon s campaigns. The story is full of\\nmarvels, of the impossible, but it shows the im-\\npression Napoleon made on his soldiers. In that\\nrespect it is truer to life than those long, crit-\\nical histories with which we are deluged to-day,\\nand which with all their accuracy are untrue to\\nfact simply because the man they take to pieces\\nand put together could never accomplish what\\nNapoleon actually did. So the Washington who\\n(6s)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0095.jp2"}, "96": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nexists in the hearts of patriotic Americans is a\\ngrander character, more harmonious, larger and\\nbetter than any Real Washington. The\\nwriter who attempts to tear off the halo of\\nglory, the noble robe with which the love of his\\ncountrymen has invested Washington, and to\\nshow us the real man, must expect to make him-\\nself unpopular no one beHeves him. In a little\\nwhile the facts of the book are forgotten, but the\\nmyth remains. We prefer to preserve our ideal\\nuntarnished by the touch of soiling reality. What\\nmakes these old traditions so perfect is that they\\nare not the work of one man; they are not re-\\nstricted by the limitations of one mind. A con-\\nsiderable portion of humanity has worked over\\nthem. As they pass from lip to lip and from ear\\nto ear they gradually assume a perfect form, and\\nit is in this final and perfect form that they are\\npreserved. Their perfection and absolute natu-\\nralness they owe to the fact that they are not writ-\\nten but told. Once commit a thing to writing\\nand it is fixed and dead, it cannot grow any more.\\nWhat I have written I have written. But the\\nspoken word is alive it can undergo a thousand\\nchanges and modifications.\\nThere is another reason for the peculiar quality\\nof these ancient stories. They are the creation\\nof the childhood of every people. They repre-\\nsent the world seen through childhood s eyes, a\\nworld of tender poetry and of perfect trust, un-\\ntroubled by the thought of what is possible or im-\\npossible. Hence we do not see that hard and\\nfalse distinction of natural and supernatural.\\nHeaven and earth meet and blend with each\\nother.\\n(66)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0096.jp2"}, "97": {"fulltext": "Myth Cannot be Treated as History\\nIt is hardly necessary for me to give further\\nproof of the mythical nature of these narratives.\\nThe stories of Creation, of Paradise, the story\\nof the Fall, of Noah s Flood, and the Tower of\\nBabel, are all of this character, and what proves\\nit conclusively is that several of these stories exist\\nin other forms in the traditions of other nations.\\nThe truth does not lie in the supposed fact, but in\\nthe lesson that is drawn from it. If we reject the\\nview I have proposed and attempt to treat the\\nnarratives as authentic history of matters of fact,\\nwe soon see that they run like quicksilver be-\\ntween our fingers. Who was present at Crea-\\ntion? To whom was such a revelation made?\\nAnd if you say God exactly informed some man\\nlong afterward of what He did, there remains the\\ndouble difficulty, first, that several statements of\\nthat account clash with what we know of Crea-\\ntion, e. g., the existence of a solid firmament over\\nthe earth and secondly, that we have two inde-\\npendent accounts which contradict each other in\\nmany particulars. Again, on the supposition that\\nthis is actual history, the taunts and jeers of men\\nlike Ingersoll are absolutely unanswerable. One\\nmay very well ask whom did Cain marry, when\\nAdam and Eve are represented as the only hu-\\nman beings alive. Or how could one man or\\neven a man and his wife build a city? Or is it\\nprobable that an ark of the dimensions given\\ncould include two specimens of all the species of\\nanimals and birds known to exist And on what\\ndid the carnivorous animals subsist? Or how\\ncan one speak of a flood rising fifteen feet above\\nthe peaks of the highest mountains, occurring at\\nat a time when Babylon, in the valley of the\\n(67)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0097.jp2"}, "98": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nEuphrates, and Egypt, in the valley of the Nile,\\nhad already reached an advanced state of civiliza-\\ntion which was not affected by the Flood? It\\nseems to me puerile to discuss questions of this\\nsort as matters of fact any longer.\\nBut, on the other hand, as soon as we recog-\\nnize these stories for what they are, popular\\nSemitic traditions of an illimitable past, given\\nan eternally true and beautiful setting by men\\ntruty inspired by God, we can appreciate them\\nwe can learn from them the truths of God they\\nare so well able to teach us, without stultifying\\nall our thought by trying to believe the impos-\\nsible. The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowl-\\nedge of good and evil grow only on the soil of\\nfaith. Giants who are the offspring of the sons\\nof God and the daughters of men, antediluvians\\nliving nine hundred years apiece, are no part of\\nthat humanity whose days are three score years\\nand ten. We admit then at once that these are\\nmyths and sagas; that is to say, narratives told a\\nthousand times, in the tent, beside the desert\\nwell, under the pleasant shade, or by the camp\\nfire at night, antedating the knowledge of writ-\\ning by hundreds or perhaps thousands of years.\\nThey are the unconscious product of youth, so\\nperfect because so unconscious, marked by all\\nchildhood s happy disregard of reality, and true\\nin precisely the same sense in which Shakes-\\npeare and Milton are true that is to say, true to\\nnature, morally and spiritually true forever. No\\ncharacters in the Old Testament possess more\\nreality than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.\\nWhat are the men of authentic history, like Heze-\\nkiah, Jeroboam, and Ahab, beside them? Hu-", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0098.jp2"}, "99": {"fulltext": "Greatness of Mythical Characters\\nmanity has stamped these men with its universal\\ngenius, though without destroying one of their\\npurely human traits. They are men still, not\\ngods or demigods. They live now by virtue of\\ntheir relations to God. All the rest is fallen\\naway, hence their lives are so well adapted to\\nteach us.\\n(69)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0099.jp2"}, "100": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Five:\\nThe Eternal Problem\\nBEFORE discussing the story of Creation\\ncontained in the first chapter of the Book\\nof Genesis, we must answer the question, Why is\\nit that the Word of God naturally begins with the\\nCreation of the world That this is the natural\\npoint of departure for the Book of the Revelation\\nof God, I think we all feel. In the boldness with\\nwhich the Book of Genesis launches itself, like an\\neagle from the mountain peak, there is the height\\nof art, but it is the art of the eagle, which knows\\nhow to balance herself on nothing, and to throw\\nher clear and powerful glance over all creation.\\nAll nations that are sufficiently civilized to know\\nhow to write, have made some effort to account\\nfor the beginnings of things, and, however widely\\nthose accounts differ from one another, they\\nagree that the world as it is now is not eternal,\\nbut that it had a beginning. When in the course\\nof time science is born, it also sets itself first of all\\nthe task of accounting for the beginnings of\\nthings. That was the case in Greece. Thales,\\nAnaximander, Anaximenes, Empedocles, Democ-\\nritus of Abdera, Athenagoras in short, all\\nthose illustrious men who laid the foundation of\\nrational science devoted their lives to the same\\n(7^)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0100.jp2"}, "101": {"fulltext": "Religion in Search for a Creator\\nproblems. What did the world come from, and\\nhow did it reach its present condition\\nBut if we look a little further we shall see that\\nthe motive of religion in asking this question is\\nradically different from the motive of science,\\nand its method of answering it is entirely unlike\\nthe scientific method. For religion the question,\\nWho made the world? is altogether a practical\\nand personal question. It is man s search for a\\nsoul to confront his soul. Who made the world\\nWho made me What question that the heart of\\nman can frame or his lips answer is as personal\\nas this? I find myself surrounded here by that\\nstrange, mysterious, splendid, terrible thing\\ncalled Nature, on which I am absolutely depend-\\nent for the air I breathe, for the food I eat and the\\nwater I drink. What is this Nature? Is it good,\\nis it bad, or is it neither? I see at once that it is\\nnot a being like myself. Mother of all life, it\\nseems to have no individual life of its own, at\\nleast none that I can grasp. Sometimes it seems to\\nbe kind and to love men. The sun shines, the val-\\nleys stand thick with corn, the birds sing, the pa-\\ntient cows are waiting to give their milk, children\\nare laughing and playing, girls are gathering the\\npurple grapes, men are cutting the golden corn,\\nworking hard, and happy in their work. Nature\\nis certainly good, she cares for man. But now it\\nis winter. The sun scarcely lifts his pale face\\nabove the horizon. With every revolution of\\nthe earth the night grows blacker and the cold\\nmore bitter. The birds fly away to softer\\nclimes, and the child of man, who cannot fly,\\nfreezes. Round the desolate hovel the wolves\\nhowl at night, and one wolf in particular, named", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0101.jp2"}, "102": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nhunger and desolation, whose tooth is sharpest,\\nhowls louder than all the rest. No help comes, no\\nhelp will come. Nature is certainly indifferent,\\nshe cares nothing for man. Again, the tempest\\narises and smites the little house. The great\\ntrees of the forest are sighing and bending and\\nlashing each other with furious arms. The house\\nfalls, crushing father and mother, and leaving the\\nlittle lambs defenceless and alone. Nature is\\nevil, she hates man.\\nOr again, here am I. Whence came I here?\\nThrough the long, long ages of the past where\\nwas I In a few years my place shall know me\\nno more. Where shall I then be? Where are\\nthose I loved whom now I see no more? Above\\nall, why am I he.re For what purpose was I put\\ninto this world without my consent? What\\nought I to do while I am here? All round me\\nI see great energies capable of crushing me.\\nWhose are they, and what are they? Are they\\ngood or are they evil? Are they many, as my\\neye tells me, or are they one, as my heart some-\\ntimes tells me? Is there anywhere One who\\nloves me Is there a law, obeying which, I shall\\nbe blessed here and hereafter If so, how shall\\nI find that One and obey that law?\\nThese, I take it, are questions men have asked\\nthemselves from the beginning. Until they are\\nanswered, and to some extent correctly an-\\nswered, life remains a mere nightmare, a terror to\\nthe conscience. The universe presses on us be-\\nneficently or menacingly. It demands of us some\\ngrand affirmation of faith, and will not leave us\\nin peace until our souls are united to it in love\\nand trust. Some answer to these questions we\\n(7^)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0102.jp2"}, "103": {"fulltext": "Evils of False Religious Views\\nmust give. But it makes a difference what form\\nof religious faith we have in regard to this su-\\npreme challenge, Who is the maker and master\\nof this world? As a man thinks in his heart, so\\nis he. Every god, no matter how base and blood-\\nstained and cruel and immoral he may be, is real\\nto those who believe in him. Those persons who\\nhave any conception of the blighting misery that\\nevil reHgions have inflicted on their votaries will\\nunderstand this. It would hardly be an exaggera-\\ntion to say that all the sorrows and hardships and\\nsufferings that dog the life of man are insignifi-\\ncant in comparison with the terrors of conscience,\\nthe fear of the unknown, the self-inflicted tor-\\ntures man has endured in his endeavor to serve\\nand placate a bad god who is supposed to take\\npleasure in human suffering.\\nIf we were to attempt to recapitulate all the\\nanswers the various religions of the world have\\nreturned to this supreme question, we should\\nnever have done. No answer that can be framed\\nJ so dreadful or so absurd that someone has not\\nsacrificed his life and happiness to it. No altar\\nis so bloody, no swarm of devils so numerous or\\nso obscene that some men have not offered their\\ndearest and best on that altar and fallen down\\nbefore those devils in reverence and awe. But\\nso far as religion is concerned, only one of those\\nanswers is true. By whatever means we come\\nto it, or however we may differ as to the par-\\nticulars, for religion the sole correct answer to\\nthe problem of Creation is this: There is One\\nGod, one supreme Master of life, whom Nature\\ndid not make, but who made Nature. To Him\\nwe all belong. This Supreme Being is good, and\\n(73)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0103.jp2"}, "104": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nHe made everything not only good of its kind,\\nbut with a good intention, for a good purpose.\\nAs the end and goal of Creation on this earth He\\nmade man, and made him in His own image. By\\nthis we do not mean that God possesses bodily\\nform. If He possesses a body, it is no less a body\\nthan the infinite universe. The image in which\\nGod created man is the image of His spiritual\\nnature. Hence man, like God, is to a certain ex-\\ntent a creator. He is not incapable of following\\nthe working of God s mind, he can employ the\\nforces of God. But far more important is the\\nfact that, unlike all other animals, he feels his re-\\nlation to God. He loves God and strives to imi-\\ntate God in his life.\\nIt is the glory of Genesis that every one of\\nthese essential truths is set forth in language of\\nunequalled simplicity and sublimity. When we\\nturn from our Book to the creation-myths of\\neven the most enlightened nations and read of\\ngods cutting ofif their own heads and mingling\\nblood with clay, of the marriage of gods and god-\\ndesses, of the death of gods and the birth of gods,\\nand all those fantastic legends which seem to\\nus too ridiculous ever to have been credited, we\\nfeel that we are face to face with aberrations of\\nthe human mind dangerously like lunacy, with\\nwhich we cannot associate our religious life for a\\nmoment. They can tell us nothing about God.\\nBetter no god than that swarm of fantastic ab-\\nsurdities. We turn from them to the calm sanity,\\nthe dignity, the justice, of Genesis, and we feel at\\nonce that these are our own ideas, only expressed\\nbetter than we can express them. However the\\nEvidenced by Mathematics, Mechanics, Physics, etc.", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0104.jp2"}, "105": {"fulltext": "The Longing for Peace\\nauthcr came by his astonishing statement of fact,\\nhe reveals God to us. He places God, Nature,\\nand man in their proper relations. Therein we\\nfind the true inspiration of Genesis.\\nUp to this time we. have been considering the\\nproblem of Creation in its religious aspect only.\\nThat, to be sure, comes first in point of time, and\\nis most important. But it is not the only aspect\\nof the problem there is also the scientific aspect.\\nIf the heart requires reassurance, consolation and\\nfaith, the intellect requires knowledge. These\\ntwo ways of approaching the study of Creation\\nare quite distinct. The motives are different, the\\nmethods are different, and the results are differ-\\nent. And yet, after all, every man has only one\\nsoul, and that soul has no watertight bulkheads.\\nSooner or later, all that we have taken into our\\nsoul mingles, and the mind is constantly striving\\nto create peace and harmony between its faith\\nand its knowledge. Some men never attain this\\npeace. Strange as it sounds, they believe one\\nthing and know the contrary to be true. But\\nthat is an unhappy and unnecessary condition of\\nmind, and one in which, in the long run, faith will\\nlose and scepticism, if not hypocrisy, will prevail.\\nThis, then, I assume as an axiom. The relig-\\nious and the scientific attitudes of mind toward\\nCreation and toward Nature generally, though\\nvery different, are both legitimate; and while\\nperfect reconciliation between them is impossible,\\nsince one is constantly changing, yet they will\\nfinally be reconciled. Meanwhile it is possible\\nfor us to be sincerely religious and at the same\\ntime to be faithful disciples of science. I have no\\ndoubt that this principle will be attacked on both\\n(75)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0105.jp2"}, "106": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nsides. On one side there are a great many re-\\nligious men who regard the problem of Creation\\nexclusively as a religious problem, a mere matter\\nof faith and divine revelation and, on the other\\nhand, there are a few men who deny all revelation\\nand faith, and who admire science chiefly because\\nthey see in it a weapon capable, as they think, of\\ndestroying religion. Epicurus, one of the great-\\nest physicists of antiquity, was candid enough to\\nsay, If the thought of the gods and of death\\nwere not injuring us, we should have no need to\\nstudy Nature. But to both these objections it\\nis enough to say that neither science nor even re-\\nligion alone is able to satisfy the whole man. As\\nlong as man remains man, one of his chief pleas-\\nures will be to think. But, on the other hand,\\nman is not a mere thinking machine, an instru-\\nment a little more complicated than those adding\\nmachines used in banks or the so-called chess\\nautomata we see in museums. Man, in addi-\\ntion to his mind, has also a soul. He has a\\nbeautiful, moving, pathetic life, a life which daily\\ndemands of him right feeling, right action. His\\nrelations with his fellow-men are emotional and\\naffectionate, not merely calculating. He is great\\nenough to perceive the littleness of what can\\nlegitimately be called science, in comparison with\\nthe needs of his soul. Looked at from any point\\nof view, it is character rather than intellect that\\nhas made man great in the past, and to-day\\nman is developing in spirituality and religious-\\nness far more rapidly than he is developing\\nin intellectual capacity. Francis Galton says\\nthat in point of intellect we are now as far be-\\nlow the Athenians of the age of Pericles as the\\n(76)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0106.jp2"}, "107": {"fulltext": "Man Forever a Religious Being\\nAfrican negroes are below us. But in all that\\npertains to the religious and moral life we are\\nalmost as much above them. I think, there-\\nfore, as Renan somewhere says, that those per-\\nsons who, in dreaming of a perfect humanity, rep-\\nresent it to themselves as a humanity without re-\\nligion, are entirely wrong. The very reverse is\\nwhat they ought to say. The Chinese are a peo-\\nple almost without religion, and they are the least\\nspiritual and most commonplace people in the\\nworld. The religious faculty develops so rap-\\nidly with the development of our other powers,\\nthat a humanity twice as wise and as strong as\\nours would be more than twice as religious. A\\nhumanity five times, ten times as great as ours,\\nmight be altogether religious.\\nReturning to our subject, the interest of reli-\\ngion in Creation is very practical. It is a matter\\nof the heart and life. We want to know who\\nmade this world and who made us, that we may\\nknow what our life ought to be and whom we\\nought to serve and obey. All that we need to\\nknow on that subject, so far as our religious\\nlife is concerned, is contained in the first chap-\\nter of Genesis and in a few simple sayings of\\nJesus in the Gospel. Now, the impulses that\\nmove science to trace things back to their begin-\\nnings are of a totally different order. To reli-\\ngion, the whole matter is summed up in one brief\\nstatement of the Nicene Creed, I beheve in\\nOne God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven\\nand Earth and of all things visible and invisible,\\nbut you may be very sure that the Nicene Creed\\ndoes not figure in works of cosmic science. Such\\na statement means nothing at all to science, if for\\n(77)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0107.jp2"}, "108": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nno other reason, because it is an act of faith,\\nwhereas science is concerned exclusively with\\nknowledge. Science does not profess to be able\\nto say with confidence who made the world, and\\nthough the vast majority of the greatest men of\\nscience beUeve in God as we do, yet with them,\\nas with us, it is a matter of faith and nothing else.\\nThe very idea of creation out of nothing is re-\\npugnant to science. It contradicts its funda-\\nmental axioms that matter is indestructible and\\nwas always and will be always the same in\\namount, and that energy can be transformed, but\\nneither increased nor diminished. When science\\nattempts to account for the present condition of\\nthe universe it proceeds in a totally different way\\nfrom the way of religion. It does not consult the\\nneeds of its own heart, for it has no heart. It\\ndoes not content itself with the general impres-\\nsion of order and harmony and wonder which the\\nuniverse makes on our minds. It cannot sum up\\nthe results of its elaborate investigations in a few\\nsublime sentences. To say God made the world\\nand made it well is to say a thing that science can\\nneither prove nor disprove. It is an assertion be-\\nfore which science stands absolutely helpless, and\\nwhich will not help it, except indirectly, one step\\non its way. Science, well aware of its own limi-\\ntations, does not attempt to ask that question\\nat all. It does not even seek to explain how\\nanything came into existence, because that too\\nis veiled forever from all human knowledge. It\\nis impossible for us to imagine how any non-\\nexistent thing acquired existence. The real prob-\\nlems of science are of a totally different order.\\nIts task is discharged by logical reasoning, or on\\n(78)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0108.jp2"}, "109": {"fulltext": "Spirit And Mechanics\\nthe humble but safe and sure path of empirical\\nobservation. Much of the impatience which re-\\nligious men have felt with the negations of sci-\\nence they have felt on account of their ignorance\\nof the necessary limitations of science. Kant said\\nlong ago, that science exists only so far as it can\\nprove its statements by mathematics. Du Bois-\\nReymond, while not altogether denying Kant s\\nassertion, wishes to substitute for the word math-\\nematics the word mechanics. He insists that the\\nwhole problem of natural science is to account for\\nevents by mechanical causes. Now, to attempt\\nby mechanics to find God, who is a Spirit if He\\nis anything, is almost as stupid as Lalande s at-\\ntempt to see God through his telescope. Or,\\nrather, it is exactly like seeking the soul of our\\nfriend through the mechanism of the brain. We\\nfind something, but what we find is the mechan-\\nical reaction, which can be measured, not intelli-\\ngence and love. As long as science sticks to its\\nbusiness it cannot help being mechanical, and\\nwhen it becomes devout and appreciative, when\\nit attempts to translate purely mechanical forces\\ninto love, purpose, and intelligence, it ceases to\\nbe scientific and becomes religious. Knowledge,\\nalthough it does not cease, becomes fused with\\nfaith.\\nThe Book of Genesis, as we have said, ap-\\nproaches the study of Creation solely from the\\nside of religion. Its purpose is to show the world\\nin its relation to God, not to give us a scientific\\naccount of the origin of the world by mechanical\\ncauses. It is tVue, as every one knows, that a cer-\\ntain number of pseudo-scientific statements have\\nslipped into the Book of Genesis, but they were\\n(79)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0109.jp2"}, "110": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nnot the original ideas of the authors of Genesis;\\nthey were only very ancient traditions which the\\nauthors of Genesis accepted with the rest of the\\nworld of their day.\\nLet us look at some of these statements. God\\nis said to have created light on the first day, long\\nbefore the creation of the sun, moon and stars.\\nApparently that is a contradiction and it is a con-\\ntradiction. Some persons have tried to explain\\nthis away by saying that the writer had the neb-\\nular hypothesis in mind, and that, before sun,\\nmoon and stars were formed, while they were\\nstill whirling masses of attenuated vapor, they\\nemitted light. But no real student of the Bible\\nwould entertain that idea for a moment. No\\nwriter of the Bible, no writer for ages after the\\nBible was written so far as I know, no one be-\\nfore Kant and Laplace had any idea of the neb-\\nular hypothesis; and besides, at the time when the\\nmoon was a whirling mass of nebulous matter,\\nthe earth was in the same condition, and no life,\\nof course, was possible. The author of the first\\nchapter of Genesis plainly conceived of light and\\ndarkness as separate objects. When the light\\ncame forth it was day. When the light withdrew\\ninto its home behind the firmament and the dark-\\nness came forth, it was night. He did not believe\\nthat all the light that exists comes from the sun,\\nthe moon and the stars, or he would not have rep-\\nresented the light as created on the first day and\\nthe sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. And\\nyet, as we shall see hereafter, this is not so much\\na scientific error as the bondage* of the writer\\nPhysiologically, light first existed when there was a seeing eye\\nto perceive it.\\n(So)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0110.jp2"}, "111": {"fulltext": "The Firmament\\nto an old mythical tradition, which, though\\nhe softened, he did not wish to omit entirely.\\nIn its older form light and darkness, which\\nhave here paled to mere abstractions, were two\\ndeities.\\nAnother strange conception is that of the\\nfirmament. Scientific writers, for the most part,\\nhave let this pass, because, not being Hebrew\\nscholars, they did not very well understand what\\nthe author meant by the expression. Our Eng-\\nlish Bible translates it correctly firmament,\\ni.e., something solid and firm. The Hebrew\\nword Rakia means something beaten out, Hke a\\nthin plate of metal, and this is the way it was\\nconceived both by the Hebrews and Babylonians\\nand by other ancient peoples. How did any\\nthoughtful people come by such a strange idea\\nIt is not difficult to see. In the first place, there\\nare the sun, moon and stars moving across the\\nsky, sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.\\nWhat supports them There must be some firm\\nand solid substance in which they are set or they\\nwould certainly fall to the earth. This substance\\nis also opaque, or else we should see them all the\\ntime. When sun, moon and stars have accom-\\nplished their journey and have lighted the earth\\nfor their allotted time, they slip behind the firma-\\nment and make their way back to the old starting\\npoint. That is the way people reasoned, and it is\\nnot bad reasoning either, only all the premises are\\nfalse. Then again it sometimes rains and some-\\ntimes snows. Where do rain and hail and snow\\ncome from To persons totally ignorant of the\\nprocesses of evaporation and condensation only\\none answer was likely to suggest itself. In addi-\\n(8i)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0111.jp2"}, "112": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ntion to the earthly waters of lake and sea and\\nriver, God has heavenly reservoirs, from which\\nHe sometimes sends down rain and hail and\\nsnow. Why do they not fall all at once and\\ndrown us? It is because they are restrained and\\nkept in their place by the same solid firmament\\nthat holds the sun, moon and stars. And God\\nmade the firmament, and divided the waters\\nwhich were under the firmament from the waters\\nwhich were above the firmament, and it was so.\\nBut if this is the case, how do the rain and hail\\nand snow get out The answer is not difficult.\\nThe firmament has windows which God occasion-\\nally opens. How often have you read in the Bible,\\nI will open the windows of Heaven, but did\\nyou ever think what it meant? When God\\nwished to drown the earth in the Flood, he opened\\nthe windows of Heaven. There is another way\\nalso by which that end was accomplished. The\\nfountains of the great abyss were broken up. But\\nthat idea is so strange and so important that I\\nshall not speak of it now, but shall reserve it for a\\ntime when I can do justice to it.\\nThere are two other statements of the first\\nchapter of Genesis with which modern science\\nhas come sharply into conflict. If we persist in\\nregarding Genesis as a literal statement of mat-\\nters of fact, it constantly presents to us insuper-\\nable difficulties, and we are driven to the miser-\\nable expedient of either rejecting this noble and\\ninspired book bodily, or of abandoning all sane\\nand real science of Nature. Let us do neither\\nthe one nor the other. The two conceptions re-\\nferred to now are the order of Creation and the\\ntime required for Creation.", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0112.jp2"}, "113": {"fulltext": "The Order of Creation\\nI. The order of Creation as laid down in the\\nfirst chapter of Genesis is not, so far as we know,\\nHterally and scientificahy correct, because it rep-\\nresents the earth as created and even as clothed\\nwith vegetable Hfe before the creation of the sun.\\nAccording to all sound scientific theory, the sun,\\nthe centre of the system to which the earth be-\\nlongs, came into being first, while the earth is\\nbelieved to have been thrown off from the cool-\\ning, contracting sun as a nebulous ring. But\\nwhether the nebular hypothesis is true or false\\n(for, after all, it is a mere theory, and, as such,\\nmay be abandoned at any time), it is certain that\\nneither fruit-tree, nor herb, nor grass ever grew\\non this earth without sunlight. And yet the\\nthought of our writer from his point of view is\\nnot so absurd as it may seem. To him this earth\\nwas the centre of the universe. Far from imagin-\\ning the relative size and importance of the sun, to\\nhim the sun was a comparatively Httle thing. It\\nwas not even the source of all the light that falls\\non the earth. Its first function was to serve as a\\nbasis for the calendar, to preside over the des-\\ntinies of men, with the moon to be for signs and\\nseasons, days and years, and to rule the day hke\\na little king. From a scientific point of view that\\nis all wrong, but from the religious point of view,\\nwhich is interested exclusively in showing how\\nGod prepared the earth for human habitation, it\\nis more than half right.\\nSo again, in regard to the order of plant life.\\nThe order of Genesis is, first, plant life, then fish\\nand birds, then cattle and other mammals, rep-\\ntiles and insect life, and lastly man. In spite of\\nminor difficulties, this list is amazingly correct.\\n(83)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0113.jp2"}, "114": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nIt is certainly interesting that our author asso-\\nciates birds and all flying things with fish and\\nplaces them before mammals, which is just where\\nevolutionary science would place them. Rep-\\ntiles, however, are introduced too late. It is\\ntrue Professor Huxley entered a long and, it\\nseems to me, rather futile controversy to prove\\nthat we do not know that plants were cre-\\nated before low forms of animal life. But,\\nlogically, it would appear that they were cre-\\nated first, because plants can derive their nour-\\nishment directly from inorganic matter, whereas\\nanimals can only digest organic matter, that is\\nto say, either plants or other animals. Sup-\\npose two animals were created before plants.\\nWhat could they live on A first meal, of course,\\nwould be at hand. One would eat the other. But\\nwhere would the second meal come from I do\\nnot see that the case would be different if, in-\\nstead of two animals, two hundred or two thou-\\nsand were brought forth at the same time. The\\nmore there were, the more mouths to feed. So,\\nagain, the author has certainly introduced man\\nwith wonderful skill and in the right place. He\\nis not so much the centre of creation, as the end\\nand goal of life on this earth, to which every other\\nform of life is subordinate.\\n2. The statements of Genesis in regard to\\nthe time consumed in Creation and the time\\nwhich has elapsed since are considered by most\\npersons the most glaring discrepancies of all.\\nThose who know little or nothing about the other\\ncontroversies waged in the name of this book\\nThe Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of\\nNature, and Mr. Gladstone and Genesis.\\n(8^0", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0114.jp2"}, "115": {"fulltext": "The Old Controversy with Geology\\nare aware of the controversy of the six days\\nand the six thousand years, which for more than\\na century blocked the path of geology and stood\\nin the way of a rational science of the earth. Give\\nus time, said the geologists, and we will account\\nfor everything on purely natural principles. But\\ntime was just what the theologians refused to\\ngive. Perhaps they did not care to see every-\\nthing explained on purely natural principles.\\nBut, as usual, the Book of Genesis was made to\\nbear the brunt of the battle. For a long time the\\nsix days of Genesis were raised as a fatal objec-\\ntion to every explanation of the earth which re-\\nquired the lapse of immense periods of time, and\\neven after the six days were no longer taken lit-\\nerally it was thought necessary to maintain that\\nthe world was created barely four thousand years\\nbefore Christ.\\nAt present this controversy is not material, but\\nI should like you to see the real position of Gene-\\nsis on the subject. I admit without hesitation that\\nthe six days of Creation are conceived in Genesis\\nas ordinary days of twenty-four hours. Each day\\nbegins with morning and concludes with even-\\ning, and what makes this more certain is that\\nthe seventh day is identified with the Jewish\\nSabbath. The commandment to keep holy the\\nSabbath day, which has been recited by Jews\\nand Christians alike for thousands of years, and\\nwhich we still recite, is based on the assertion\\nthat on this day God rested after the labor of\\nCreation.\\nBut, on the other hand, we ought to remember\\nthat the only reason why geology requires so\\nmuch time is because it attempts to explain the\\n(8s)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0115.jp2"}, "116": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ncreation of the earth mechanically, i.e., scientifi-\\ncally, by natural causes. Geologists have no\\nspecial love or reverence for time itself. They\\nwould be glad enough to shorten the time to\\nplease us if they could do so. The only reason\\nwhy they want so much time is that they do not\\nsee how the world could have reached its present\\ncondition by mechanical causes in a shorter time.\\nHere we see a striking example of the absolute\\ndifference between the scientific and the religious\\nmethod. The author of Genesis has nothing to\\nsay about mechanical causes. Had he wished to\\ndescribe how the world was made by natural\\nagencies, he would probably have asked as much\\ntime as any one. There is another fact which, so\\nfar as I know, nobody has noticed. The Priestly\\nWriter, who knew the science of Babylon so well,\\nhad before his eyes a Babylonian account of\\nCreation which allowed long periods of time to\\nelapse between its several acts, and this account\\nour writer frequently uses. But in this instance\\nhe rejects it and substitutes his six days, because\\nhe is not describing creation by natural causes,\\nbut, to use Dillmann s expression, creation by\\nthe word of God, for whom time does not\\nexist.\\nI know perfectly well that this is not scientific,\\nit is not even true to fact. But it is religiously\\ntrue to those who believe that God is the Maker\\nof this world. It is part of that simple and ideal-\\nistic system of imparting truth under the form of\\nmyth which distinguishes all this great Book of\\nours. The thought underlying the system is a\\ntrue one. It would not make the account of\\nCreation a whit more impressive if our writer had\\n(86)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0116.jp2"}, "117": {"fulltext": "The Six Days\\ncopied the extravagant figures of the Babylonian\\nor Indian cosmogonies in place of his own six\\ndays. In my opinion the brilliancy of the picture\\nwould be dimmed by so much diffusion. The\\nerror lies with those who attempt to interpret\\nmaterially and scientifically what was intended\\nreligiously and ideally.\\n(87)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0117.jp2"}, "118": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Six:\\n^he Creation Story\\nWE have been a long time In reaching the\\nfirst chapter of Genesis, but in our more\\ngeneral and comprehensive survey of the book\\nwe have learned much that we could not have got\\nat so easily in any other way. However, we have\\nhad enough by way of introduction. The method\\nI now propose to follow is to give, as far as\\npossible, a correct, literal translation of the first\\nchapter of Genesis and an explanation of its\\nwonderful verses just sufficient to enable us to\\nknow what they mean to tell us, and then to go\\nback and consider in detail the problems with\\nwhich this chapter abounds.\\nEvery Hebrew scholar must remember the\\nfeeling of awe and admiration he experienced\\nwhen he first spelled out these majestic words\\nand then read them over and over until their\\nflow and rhythm were impressed upon his mem-\\nory forever. Even in English much of the\\ncharm of these sentences is preserved. In their\\nmonotonous repetitions and their sure advance\\nthey seem to run parallel to the very processes\\nof creation they describe; but in Hebrew, the\\nnoble melody and collocation of sounds, and the\\nsustained energy of thought, reach a perfection\\n(8^", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0118.jp2"}, "119": {"fulltext": "The First Creation Story\\nof expression beyond which the art of words can-\\nnot go\\nB reshith bara Elohim eth hasshamayim v eth\\nhaarez. V haarez hayatha thohu v vohu, v cho-\\nshek al pne th hom. V ruach Elohim m rach-\\nepheth al p ne hammayim. Vayyomer Elohim\\ny hi or, vayy hi or. Vayyar Elohim eth haor ki\\ntov, etc.\\n1. In the beginning [or, in the very beginning] Elo-\\nhim created the heavens and the earth. [Or, In the be-\\nginning when Elohim created the heavens and the earth.]\\n2. And the earth was a waste and an empty chaos, and\\ndarkness was on the face of the abyss,i and the Spirit of\\nGod was brooding [tenderly] on the waters. 2\\n3. And Elohim said, Let light be, and light was.\\n4. And Elohim saw the light that it was good, and\\nElohim separated the light from the darkness.\\n5. And Elohim called the light day, and the darkness\\ncalled He night, and it became evening and it became\\nmorning, one day [or, a first day].\\n6. And Elohim said, Let there be a firmament between\\nthe waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.\\n7. And Elohim made the firmament, and separated the\\nwaters that are beneath from those that are above the\\nfirmament.\\n8. And Elohim named the firmament Heaven; and there\\nwas evening and there was morning, a second day.\\n9. And Elohim said, Let the waters which are beneath\\nthe Heaven gather together into one place and let the\\ndry [land] appear. And it was so.\\n1 The author carefully refrains from saying that God\\ncreated either darkness or chaos. The preexistence of\\nboth is tacitly assumed. What God created is cosmos and\\nlight. The conception of chaos in all genuinely ancient\\ncosmogonies is the great poetical datum from which the\\nnarratives proceed.\\n2 The brooding Spirit as a creative principle with Its\\nImplication of gradual self-development, as Wellhausen\\npointed out, is quite distinct from the creative word of\\nwhich the remainder of this chapter speaks. The merging\\nof these two conceptions indicates that this cosmogony is\\ncomposite, and that it was derived from more than one\\nsource.\\n(89)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0119.jp2"}, "120": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n10. And Elohim named the dry land earth, and He\\nnamed the gathering of the waters seas. And Elohim saw\\nthat it was good.\\n11. And Klohim said, Let the earth produce the green\\nblade, the herb which yields seed, fruit trees which bring\\nforth fruit after their kind in which their seed is contained\\nupon the earth. And it was so.^\\n12. And the earth brought forth the green blade, the\\nherb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree bearing fruit\\nwhich has its seeds in itself after its kind. And Elohim\\nsaw that it was good.\\n13. And there was evening and there was morning, a\\nthird day.\\n14. And Elohim said, Let luminaries come into exist-\\nence in the firmament of Heaven to divide the day from\\nthe night, and let them be for signs, for [reckoning] the\\nfixed times, and for [numbering] the days and the years.\\n15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of\\nHeaven to give light upon the earth. And it was so.\\n16. And Elohim made the two great luminaries, the\\ngreater luminary to rule over the day, the lesser luminary\\nto rule over the night, and also the stars. 2\\n17. 18. And Elohim set them in the firmament of Heaven\\nto give light upon the earth, and to rule over day and night\\nand to divide the light from dimness. And Elohim saw\\nthat it was good.\\n19. And there was evening and there was morning, a\\nfourth day.\\n20. And Elohim said, Let the waters swarm with a\\nswarm of living beings, and let fowls fly over the earth in\\nIt will be noticed that God does not make plant\\nand tree. The earth itself at God s command is deemed\\nsufficient for their production. The evolutionary idea of\\nthe development of the organic from the inorganic is found\\nhere. This thought would be naturally suggested by the\\nnew life of each succeeding springtide.\\n2 The functions assigned to the luminaries which are to\\nserve as signs, as the basis of the calendar, and as rulers of\\nthe day and night, are among the most antique concep-\\ntions of this chapter. In the recognition of the stars as\\nsigns, we discern the ancient science of astrology. The\\nconception of the sun and moon as rulers of day and\\nnight hardly grew on the soil of Israel s revealed religion.\\nIt is rather, as Gunkel says, the faint echo of an earlier\\nadoration of the heavenly bodies, against which Job warns\\n(90)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0120.jp2"}, "121": {"fulltext": "Creation of Animals and Man\\nthe face of the firmament of Heaven. [Or, on the front\\nside of the firmament, the side turned towards us.]\\n21. And Elohim created great sea monsters and all the\\nliving, moving things with which the waters swarm, and\\nalso all winged fowl after their kind. And Elohim saw that\\nit was good.\\n22, 23. And Elohim blessed them, saying, Be fruitful\\nand multiply and fill the waters of the sea, and let the fowl\\nmultiply on the land. And there was evening and there\\nwas morning, a fifth day.\\n24. And Elohim said, Let the earth bring forth living\\nbeings after their kinds, the cattle, the reptiles, and the wild\\nbeasts after their kinds. And it was so.\\n25. And Elohim made the wild beasts after their kinds,\\nthe cattle after their kind, and every reptile [literally, creep-\\ning things] of the ground after its kind. And Elohim saw\\nthat it was good.\\n26. And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image,i\\naccording to our likeness, and let him have dominion over\\nthe fishes of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cat-\\ntle and over all the earth, and over every reptile that creeps\\nupon the earth.\\n27. And Elohim created man in His image, in the image\\nof Elohim He created him,^ male and female created He\\nthem.\\n1 This expression far exceeds the limits of the so-called\\nplural of majesty or excellence, and points to a plurality\\nof divine beings whose assistance was required in this chef-\\nd oeuvre, or at least to other Elohim in the service of the\\nCreator, as the Targum and Philo admit. Two other ex-\\npressions in the early chapters of Genesis the man has\\nbecome like one of us, and Go to, let us go down\\ncertainly exceed the limits of strict monotheism. These\\nconceptions could have arisen only in very early times,\\nand as nothing in the present narrative warrants such ex-\\npressions, in each instance we must assume that something\\n(the assembly of heavenly beings) has fallen from the text.\\nJob also (chapter xxxviii. 7), in his account of creation,\\nrepresents the morning stars as singing together, and the\\nsons of Elohim as shouting for joy.\\nWhat that image of God is in which man was created\\nthe Book of Genesis does not attempt to determine. We\\nprefer to think of the image of God s spiritual nature, and\\nin the absence of definite indication to the contrary, we\\nhave the right to conceive of it thus. From other expres-\\nsions of Genesis, however e. g., that Adam begot a son\\n(90", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0121.jp2"}, "122": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n28. And Elohim blessed them, and said to them, Be\\nfruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Have do-\\nminion over the fishes of the sea, over the fowl of the air\\nand over every living being that moves over the earth.\\n29. And Elohim said, Behold, I give you every plant\\nbearing seed that is upon the surface of all the earth, and\\nevery tree that has a fruit producing seed. That shall be\\nfood for you,\\n30. And to every animal of the ground and to every fowl\\nof the air and to every reptile on the earth having in itself\\na breath of Hfe, I give all green herbs for food. And it\\nwas so.\\n31. And Elohim saw all that He had made, and lo! it was\\nvery good. And there was evening and there was morn-\\ning, a sixth day.\\nChapter II.\\n1. So the heavens and the earth were finished and all\\ntheir host.\\n2. And Elohim finished on the seventh day His work\\nwhich He had made. [A difficulty. We should either ex-\\npect finished on the sixth day, or else we must under-\\nstand had done with on the seventh day. And on the\\nseventh day He rested from all His work which He had\\nmade.i\\n3. And Elohim blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,\\nbecause on this day He rested from all His work which\\nHe had created and made.\\n4. This is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth\\nwhen they were created.\\nin his own image, and that the shedding of human blood\\nis an injury to the image of God it would appear that\\nthe image of God was not originally understood in an\\nexclusively spiritual sense.\\n1 The six days of creative activity and the Sabbath of\\nrest occur in no other ancient cosmogony. This concep-\\ntion, therefore, appears to be a late and an exclusively\\nHebraic belief. Elohim s inspection of each day s work to\\nsee if it be good, with the implied possibility of failure,\\nis very naive. The Zoroastrian cosmogony also divides\\ncreation into six acts, not only in the Bundahesh, but also\\nin the Zend Avesta (Visparad vii. 4; Yasna xix. 2, 4, and 8).\\nThe Zoroastrian order is sky, water, earth, cattle, plants,\\n(92)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0122.jp2"}, "123": {"fulltext": "Influence of Ancient Tradition\\nThere, in plain English, is an approximately\\ncorrect translation of the first account of Crea-\\ntion, about which so many books have been writ-\\nten. What can we make of it? Those who have\\nfollowed the discussion thus far will know, at least\\nin a general way, what to expect. In the first\\nplace, this story is not the original production of\\nthe Priestly Writer of this first chapter of Gene-\\nsis. It contains the remains of many old tradi-\\ntions, which we shall have Httle difficulty in dis-\\ncovering and separating. Secondly, I believe that\\nthose traditions were not borrowed wholesale at a\\nlate date, e. g., from the Babylonians and the Per-\\nsians at the time of the Exile, but that, on tlie con-\\ntrary, they may even be part of a primitive Sem-\\nitic inheritance as old as the people themselves.\\nThirdly, those traditions, before they reached us,\\nhave passed through the soul of a truly inspired\\nman, in consequence of which they differ abso-\\nlutely from all similar attempts to describe Crea-\\ntion. We shall find many resemblances with\\nother literatures, but the difference is always\\nsharper and deeper than the resemblance.\\nThe two features which distinguish this ac-\\ncount of Genesis from all similar accounts what-\\never, are the conception of God and the concep-\\ntion of man. In the first place, God is anterior\\nto Creation and there is none beside Him. Elo-\\nhim has no father, no mother, no wife. The fe-\\nmale principle, the distinction of sex, source of\\nendless immoralities to almost every other an-\\ncient religion, is not exactly suppressed it does\\nnot exist. There is not the slightest trace of it.\\nHow does this happen? Matthew Arnold tried\\nto explain it by saying that the Jews had a talent\\n(93)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0123.jp2"}, "124": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nfor morality, just as Renan thinks they had a\\ngenius for monotheism Where did they get that\\ntalent, and how does it happen that when such tal-\\nents were being distributed other nations did not\\ncome in for their share The writers of Genesis\\ncertainly did not get their pure views of God\\nfrom the society they depict, which is polygamous\\nto the core, and which they describe apparently\\nwithout a suspicion that polygamy is an evil\\nthing. When I see plainly that the God of this\\nchapter is a peculiar being, pure and good and\\nwise and one, as God must be, I prefer to believe\\nthat the man who drew this picture of Him was\\npeculiarly inspired in this sense he had a concep-\\ntion of God which other men of his day did not\\npossess, and which, after all these years of prog-\\nress, our hearts tell us is true.\\nIn the beginning God created. There is\\nsomething wonderful in that bold statement of\\nfact. Other accounts of Creation become a sort\\nof family history of the gods. One god with his\\nwife begets another. Or it is the world that\\nmakes God, not God that makes the world, and\\nso, at last, there results a hopeless jumble of\\nworlds, gods and demigods, gradually tapering\\ndown to men. In Genesis the distinctions are\\ndrawn with absolute clearness. There is noth-\\ning magical about Nature. It is just the plain\\neveryday world we know. When man appears,\\nhe appears as a man, not as some mythical mon-\\nster with whom we have no kith or kin. Ex-\\ncept that Adam and Noah and Abraham lived\\nlonger than we live, and were built on a larger\\nscale, they were human beings exactly like us. In\\norder to make this plainer, it will now be almost", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0124.jp2"}, "125": {"fulltext": "Hindu Creation Story\\nnecessary for me to set before you briefly other\\naccounts of Creation as they were handed down\\nby the great civilized nations of antiquity. I will\\nbegin with India.\\nThe Hindu account of Creation is contained in\\nthe Law Book of Manu. It is talented, but too\\nprolix, so that I shall give only the most impor-\\ntant features of it. The ancient sages are repre-\\nsented as coming to Manu, who himself is con-,\\nceived as a god, and asking him to explain to\\nthem the origin of all things. And Manu says\\nListen: This universe existed in the shape of darkness\\nunperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable\\nby reason, wholly immersed, as it were in deep\\nsleep.\\nThen the divine, self-existent One, indiscernible himself,\\nbut making all the great elements discernible, appeared\\nwith irresistible power, dispelling the darkness.\\nHe, desiring to produce many beings from his own body\\n[here the mischief begins] first with a thought created the\\nwaters and placed his seed m them. That seed became a\\ngolden egg, in brilliancy like the sun. In that egg, he\\nhimself was born as Brahman, the progenitor of the whole\\nworld. [Already God has become part of Nature.]\\nThe divine One resided in that egg during a whole year.\\nThen, by his thought alone, he divided it into two halves.\\nAnd out of these two halves he made heaven and earth.\\nThen he goes on to create a long list of mental\\nqualities, gods, demons, and other mythical be-\\nings. Then he divides himself and becomes\\nhalf male, half female; and from that union a\\ncertain Virag is born, who, in turn, becomes a\\ncreator. In all this the religious element simply\\nmelts away. One creator passes Into another so\\nrapidly that it is hard to say who created any-\\nthing. In other words, God is swamped in the\\nprocesses of Nature. There are two points, how-\\n(95)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0125.jp2"}, "126": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\never, to be remembered. Nature begins with\\nchaos, and the world is developed out of an egg.\\nAccording to the Greek doctrine represented\\nby Hesiod, first of all was Chaos, then Gaea\\n(earth), Tartarus (the bottomless abyss), and\\nEros (love), the active, uniting principle. Out of\\nchaos came Erebus (primeval darkness), and\\nNyx (night). Their children are Sleep, Death,\\nDreams, Deceit, Old Age, etc. On the other\\nhand, the Earth of herself first brought forth\\nUranos (the starry heavens), and Pontus (the\\nsalt depths of the sea), and then, with Uranos as\\nher husband, the ocean that surrounds the world.\\nThen the story passes into the genealogy of the\\ngods, who are conceived as the product of Na-\\nture.\\nI notice three things. First, that everything\\nhere begins with chaos; secondly, that the gods\\nwere not considered equal to the task of making\\nthe world the world made them; thirdly, that\\nthe broad-bosomed, fertile earth is the principal\\ncreator. Of any really religious elements there\\nis not a trace.\\nThe cosmogony of the Egyptians is of excep-\\ntional interest to us, not only on account of its\\ngreat age but also on account of the close rela-\\ntions which existed from the earhest times be-\\ntween the Egyptians and the Hebrews. Al-\\nthough the Biblical saying, Moses was learned\\nin all the wisdom of the Egyptians, has not the\\nimportance in this connection that it once had,\\nyet this statement is, doubtless, a recognition of\\nthe fact that the two nations possessed many\\ntraditions in common. This has become more\\ncertain since the Semitic character of the Egyp-\\n(96)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0126.jp2"}, "127": {"fulltext": "Egyptian Cosmogonies\\ntian civilization lias been established. Unfor-\\ntunately, although we have numerous allusions\\nto the creation of the world and of man in old\\nEgyptian hymns and inscriptions, we find no\\none authoritative and detailed cosmogony like\\nour own creation story. This, however, is only\\nto be expected. The Egyptians were a poly-\\ntheistic people, and from the earliest times pos-\\nsessed important cities in which priestly schools\\nflourished; it was therefore natural that each of\\nthese schools should elaborate its own cosmo-\\ngony, in which the local deity was praised as the\\nchief creator. At Elephantine the creator was\\ncalled Chnum (or Hnuniu), the builder or archi-\\ntect. He forms man out of clay with the assist-\\nance of his wheel. The pictures represent him\\nas turning the potter s wheel with his foot, form-\\ning a human figure which is usually represented\\nas a child. Beside him rests the world egg of\\nclay, which he has already fashioned. At Mem-\\nphis, the oldest royal city of Egypt, Ptah, the\\nbuilder, was regarded as the creator of all things.\\nIn particular he created the Hght god. At Her-\\nmopolis it was Thoth who made the world by the\\nword of his mouth, speaking it into existence.\\nIn Thebes the honor of creation was ascribed to\\nAmon, the invisible god. East of the Nile, in\\nHeliopolis (Onu), the chief deity was the sun\\ngod Tum or Atum. He is the creator and re-\\nvealer in his capacity of god of light. It was also\\nsaid that earth and sky were two lovers clasped\\nin each other s embrace and lost in primeval\\nwaters. In most of these cities the creator was\\nregarded as a male deity, but in some of the\\npriestly schools (e. g., at Sai s and Tentyra) the\\n(97)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0127.jp2"}, "128": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nprimal fertile matter was personified as a female\\ndeity, Neith, Hathor, etc. Many of these ac-\\ncounts are couched in obscure mythological\\nterms, whose meaning escapes us. The most\\nimportant statement of creation that Brugsch\\nBey is able to bring forward runs as follows. It\\nis undoubtedly taken from genuinely ancient\\nEgyptian sources, although I believe it is not\\nfound in a single inscription.\\nIn the beginning neither Heaven nor Earth existed.\\nSurrounded by thick darkness, a chaos of primeval water\\n[named Nun] filled everything, and concealed in its bosom\\nmale and female germs, the beginnings of the future world.\\nThe divine primal Spirit which is inseparable from the ele-\\nment of primeval water, felt a longing to create, and His\\nWord awakened the world to life, whose form and whose\\nobjects were previously mirrored in his eye. Their physi-\\ncal outlines and colors corresponded after their creation to\\nthe truth that is, to the original thought of the divine\\nSpirit in regard to his future work. The first creative act\\nbegan with the formation of an egg, out of which broke\\nforth primeval waters, out of which broke forth the light\\nof day (Ra), the immediate cause (ra) of life on earth. In\\nthe rising sun the almightiness of the divine soul em-\\nbodied itself in its most splendid form.\\nThis brief statement may be regarded as the\\nnorm of all ancient Egyptian cosmogonies. The\\nworld begins with a dark, fruitful, watery chaos,\\nin which the germs of all things are con-\\ntained. Whether this preexisting substance\\nbe called Nun, Ptah, Thoth, or Hnumu, the\\nidea remains the same. But this chaos, in-\\nstead of being a hostile element which resists\\nthe creator, is in closest union with the divine\\nSpirit. In Egypt the sharp dualism of Babylo-\\nnian speculation is transformed into an unresist-\\nReligion und Mythologie, p. loi.\\n_", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0128.jp2"}, "129": {"fulltext": "Egyptian Creation Hymn\\niiig evolution of chaos into cosmos. The first\\nstep of this process, as in Genesis, is the breaking\\nforth of Hght. In fact, the account of creation\\nis plainly modelled on the phenomenon of the\\nbreaking of the new day. As the sun rises out\\nof the dark waters and thick clouds, and having\\nrisen reveals the world, so the world itself origi-\\nnally rose out of chaos. In some of the Egyp-\\ntion creation hymns these two phenomena are so\\nclosely intertwined as to be almost indistinguish-\\nable.\\nAlthough detailed cosmogonies are rare in\\nEgypt, perhaps no other ancient literature con-\\ntains so many creation hymns. In these hymns\\nthe work of the Creator is frequently set forth\\nwith some poetic beauty and with great variety\\nof detail. I add a few verses taken from Brugsch\\nBey. In most of these creation is regarded as\\nstill going on.\\nFather of the gods, author of men,\\nWho hast suspended the heaven and estabHshed the earth,\\nMaker of what is, Creator of what is to be.\\nFather of the gods, author of men.\\nCreator of animals, ruler of all that is.\\nCreator of fruit-trees, maker of the plant which nourishes\\nthe cattle.\\nCreator of the world, who hast suspended the heaven and\\nestablished the earth,\\nAuthor of men, who didst divide them according to their\\nspecies;\\nCreator of their being, who didst distinguish the color of\\none from that of his neighbor.\\nHe created the mountain, the gold, the silver, and the\\nsapphire according to his pleasure.\\nReligion und Mythologie der alten /Egypter, and Stein-\\nschrift und Bibelwort, BerHn, 1891.\\nLofC.\\n(99)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0129.jp2"}, "130": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThis last verse reminds us a little of the gold,\\nbedolach and onyx of Havilah, which are intro-\\nduced so unexpectedly into our second Creation\\nstory.\\nA Hymn to Hnumu.\\nMaker of the stars, author of the gods, he the existent\\none, alone, unborn, incomprehensible, before whom none\\nother was, for he is the father of those whom he created.\\nV/hen he formed the gods, moulded the goddesses, brought\\nforth man and woman, birds, fish, the wild animal, the\\ntame animal, and every reptile, he suspended the heaven\\nand made fast the earth, let the waters pour out, and cre-\\nated everything which has existence.\\nIn another ancient hymn a king addresses his\\ngod in these words\\nI draw near to thee, holy architect, creator of the gods,\\nmaker of the egg, who is without an equal. By thy will\\nwas the potter s wheel brought to thee, and thy majesty\\nmodelled gods and men on it. Thou art the great, exalted\\ngod who at the beginning first didst make this world.\\nNaturally much interest was felt by the Egyp-\\ntians in the creation of man. On this subject\\nopinion wavered in Egypt, as it did among the\\nwriters of Genesis. While some inscriptions and\\nhymns represent man as a physical product of\\nthe deity, or as called into being by the word of\\nGod, the more popular belief was that the Cre-\\nator had modelled man out of clay with the aid\\nof a potter s wheel. The inscriptions affirm that\\nthis image was without life until the Creator\\nbreathed into its nose and infused his soul into\\nthe clay. This tallies exactly with the words of\\nthe Jehovist. The most poetic conception of\\nthe origin of man was that man sprang from the\\ntears shed by the deity. The origin of this be-\\nlief, however, seems to have been a mere play on\\nwords. It is as if the English word for man was\\ntearer, hence he is supposed to spring from tears.\\n(loo)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0130.jp2"}, "131": {"fulltext": "Egyptian Creation Hymns\\nHis eye wept (rimi) and out of his tears came mankind\\n(rome).*\\nIn a long hymn of Theban origin, Amon is in-\\nvoked as follows\\nHe is the only god who made everything that is.\\nHe alone and solitary creates what will be.\\nMen come forth from his eyes and gods from his mouth.\\nHe is the maker of the plant which nourishes the herds,\\nAnd of the trees which bear their fruits for men.\\nHe gives to the fish of the river their food,\\nAnd to the birds under the heaven.\\nAnd gives breath to all that comes forth from the egg.\\nHe feeds the grasshopper.\\nHe sustains the spider and what creeps and hops after its\\nkind.\\nHe gives food to the mice in their holes\\nAnd nourishes what flies in every thicket.\\nHail to thee who hast created all these,\\nThou alone, solitary, with copious hand.\\nThe line which speaks of the spider and what\\ncreeps and hops after its kind, reminds us\\nstrongly of our Priestly Writer. Was it from\\nEgypt, the land of the scarab the land in\\nwhose plagues insects played so prominent a\\npart that our writer derived his infatuation for\\ncreeping things Although the Egyptian\\ncosmogony presents fewer points of similarity\\nto ours than the Babylonian, in the monotheism\\nof its thought and in its freedom from sexual al-\\nlusions it is closely akin to the spirit of Genesis.\\nIts general conception of physical conditions is\\nBrugsch is inclined to derive this word from an Egyptian\\nroot, ruf?i, to think. This lends unexpected support to the deri-\\nvation of the word man from the Sanskrit root ??ian (Skeat), which\\nalso means to think. The secondary meaning of rtem, according\\nto Brugsch, is to lift one s self, to be high, which again is\\nclosely akin to the old derivation of Anthropos. See Stein-\\nschrift u. Bibelwort, p. 17.", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0131.jp2"}, "132": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmuch the same, and in regard to the method of\\nCreation it wavers Hke Genesis between the evo-\\nlution of the world egg and creation by the word\\nof God. The potter and the clay are also ad-\\nmitted. Lastly, the passive nature of chaos and its\\nintimate association with the spirit of God, while\\ndiffering from the transcendent idea of Genesis\\nin one respect, in another respect approach the\\nconception of the Priestly Writer much more\\nnearly than does raging Tiamat. In view of\\nthese considerations, it would be rash to say that\\nour Creation story was derived from Babylonia\\nalone, or that it came late to the Hebrews.\\nThe Persian account of Creation is so closely\\nbound up with the reHgious ideas associated with\\nthe name of Zoroaster as to be unintelligible ex-\\ncept as a part of that system. Our principal\\nauthority is the Bundahesh, although in this, as\\nin many other instances, the statements of the\\nBundahesh often rest on the Avesta. According\\nto the conceptions of the Zoroastrians, the crea-\\ntion of the material world followed the creation\\nof the spiritual worlds of good and evil. These\\ntwo kingdoms have divided as light and dark-\\nness; between them lay the neutral territory of\\nempty space. In this intermediate field, which\\nbecame the field of battle of the two spiritual\\nspheres, arose the material world. The dilTer-\\nence between the material and the spiritual\\nworld is not merely that the material world con-\\nsists of gross, corporeal substance, while the spir-\\nitual world is fine and invisible. The chief dif-\\nference is that the material world is finite and\\ndestructible, while the good side of the spiritual\\nworld is eternal, without beginning or end. The", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0132.jp2"}, "133": {"fulltext": "ZOROASTRIAN CoSMOGONY\\nmaterial world, on the contrary, had a begmning,\\nand its duration is limited to the brief span of\\ntwelve thousand years. It has no independent\\nplace nor right of its own, but serves only as a\\nbattlefield of good and evil. Like everything\\nelse, the material world was created by the good\\nbeing, Ahura Mazda. It was made by him to\\naccomplish his beneficent purpose of self-revela-\\ntion and the victory of goodness.\\nThe struggle between good and evil, between\\nAhura Mazda and Angro Mainyu, had long con-\\ntinued before this material world arose. Already\\nhad Angro Mainyu made his attack on the light.\\nA truce of nine thousand years had been con-\\ncluded between the two forces because Ahura\\nMazda felt that he needed this respite in order\\nto organize his powers for final victory. Angro\\nMainyu, whose lack of foresight did not warn\\nhim against this error, soon perceived his mis-\\ntake. This respite Ahura Mazda employed in\\ncreation. After he had framed the spiritual\\nworld of higher intelHgences, he fashioned the\\nmaterial world. First he made the heavens, with\\ntheir celestial bodies; secondly water, then the\\nearth, then trees, cattle and man.* The whole\\nmaterial creation occupied him for one year of\\nthree hundred and sixty-five days,t as follows\\nThe creation of heaven occupied forty-five days,\\nthat of water sixty, earth seventy-five, trees\\nthirty, cattle eighty, and man seventy-five in all,\\nsix acts. For three thousand years this creation\\nremained in heaven free from every plague.\\nThen it was let down into the space it now occu-\\nYasna, xix. i, 2, and Bundahesh, i. 28.\\nf Bundahesh, xxv. i.\\n(103)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0133.jp2"}, "134": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\npies, and for three thousand years more it es-\\ncaped evil. Whether the world was created out\\nof preexisting material or e nihilo is not definitely\\nstated. From the creations of evil, the latter\\nseems more probable. The material out of which\\nthe earth was made is not mentioned the heav-\\nens are said to be made of steel. After the lapse\\nof six thousand years, Angro Mainyu began to\\ninterfere with Ahura Mazda s good creation. As\\nAhura Mazda had made the earth fruitful, Angro\\nMainyu strove to make it barren. All deserts and\\nwaste places were his creation, as well as the soil\\nwhich brings forth poisonous and injurious\\nplants and weeds. As Ahura Mazda created only\\ngood and useful plants and animals, Angro Main-\\nyu retaliated by creating noxious and evil coun-\\nterfeits of his handiwork, the wolf for the dog,\\nthe poisonous insect for the ant, the tortoise for\\nthe hedgehog, etc. Pages might be filled with\\naccounts of Angro Mainyu s attempts to corrupt\\nand ruin Ahura Mazda s good creatures. Every\\nform of physical and moral evil was thus most\\nconveniently accounted for. Perhaps for every\\ngood species of plant and animal created by\\nAhura Mazda an evil species was created by\\nAngro Mainyu.* Whether a real counterpart\\nto man was created by him is doubtful. At all\\nevents, Angro Mainyu peopled the world with\\nevil beings, partly human, partly superhuman.\\nAfter the birth of Zoroaster this power was with-\\ndrawn, and from henceforth Angro Mainyu can\\nonly revenge himself by injuring and crippling\\nthe human form. His peculiar work, however,\\nlies in the seduction and corruption of man,\\nSee Vendidad, xiii,, and Biindahesh, xix.\\n(104)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0134.jp2"}, "135": {"fulltext": "Phcenician Cosmogony\\nwhom Angro Mainyu ever strives to lead away\\nfrom his creator. We see this most plainly in\\nthe stories of Yima the good shepherd and of\\nMashya and Mashyana. This is possibly be-\\ncause man s free will makes it possible for him\\nto choose good or evil. In yielding to evil, man\\ncomes more and more under the power of evil\\nspirits, until at last, if he perseveres in sin, he be-\\ncomes a mere receptacle for devils.*\\nThe Phoenician cosmogony is contained in a\\nwork on Phoenician history written by Philo\\nByblius, who was born, according to Suidas, in\\n42A.D. Philo swork has perished, but several con-\\nsiderable fragments of it have been preserved in\\nEusebius Preparatio Evangelica. t Philo pro-\\nfessed to derive his knowledge of the Phoenician\\nreligion from a native Phoenician writer whom he\\ncalls Sanchuniathon, a Berytian, who is said to\\nhave written about 1221 b. c. The strife that has\\narisen over every one of these statements is well\\nknown. On account of the extreme meagreness\\nof our information as to this great people, even\\nsuch records as are preserved by Philo Byblius\\nwould be of the greatest value could they be\\nproved genuine. On account of certain hellen-\\nizing tendencies J in the so-called document of\\nSanchuniathon, it has been doubted whether\\nVendidad, viii, 5, 31, 32. For the foregoing, in addition to\\nthe authorities cited, see Bundahesh, and Spiegel s Eranische\\nAlterthumskunde, ii. 141-151.\\nf Cory s Fragments, pp. 3-18.\\nX I. The tendency to regard the gods as deified men after the\\nmanner of Euhemerus, a contemporary of Alexander the Great.\\n2. Philo s so-called syncretism, i.e., an inclination to confuse or\\nmerge the beliefs of diverse peoples, which is characteristic of the\\nlater development of Greek philosophy. 3. His attempt to ex-\\nplain the names of Phoenician deities by the Greek gods, etc.\\n{105)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0135.jp2"}, "136": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nPhilo had any such Phoenician authority before\\nhim, and even whether Eusebius derived the\\nPhoenician cosmogony from the work of Philo.\\nAlthough I cannot attempt to discuss these ques-\\ntions, I may say that since the investigations of\\nMovers,* Ewald,t Renan,:j: Baudissin\u00c2\u00a7 and oth-\\ners, there has been a reaction against the unrea-\\nsonable scepticism with which Philo s work had\\nbeen regarded. It may be considered as proved\\nthat Eusebius derived the accounts he has pre-\\nserved from Philo s vanished work, although it\\nis probable that Eusebius, according to his cus-\\ntom, distorted the views which he cited only to\\ndiscredit. The name Sanchuniathon appears to\\nbe a genuine Phoenician name, and, although\\nPhilo s excerpts are strongly tinged with later\\nideas, it is certain that they were not his own\\noriginal inventions. On the contrary, there\\nseems no reason to doubt that Philo derived\\nthose portions of his account which are not\\nEgyptian, Greek or Jewish from Phoenician\\nsources, even though the work of Sanchuniathon\\nbe regarded as fabulous. With this brief notice\\nI pass to his cosmogony.\\nHe supposes that the beginning of all things was a dark\\nand condensed windy air, or a breeze of thick air, and\\na chaos turbid and black as Erebus, and that these were\\nunbounded and for a long series of ages destitute of form.\\nDie Phonizier, 1841, Band, ii., and article, Phonizien,\\nin Ersch und Gruber s Encyclopcedia.\\nf Abhandlung liber die Phonik, Ansichten von der Welt-\\nschopfung, etc. (Abhandlungen der Konigl. Gesell. der Wissen-\\nschaften zu Gottingen, 1853.)\\nMemoire sur I origine et le caractere veritable de I histoire\\nphenicienne, etc., in the Memoires de I Academie deslnscrip.,\\nvol. xxiii., 1858, part ii., pp. 241-334.\\nSanchuniathon, in his Studien zur Semit. Religionsge-\\nschichte, Leipzig, 1876.\\n(106)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0136.jp2"}, "137": {"fulltext": "Sanchuniathon s Narrative\\nWe see here the old Semitic antithesis of Chaos\\nand Spirit.\\nBut when this spirit became enamoured of its own first\\nprinciples (Chaos) and an intimate union took place, that\\nconnection was called Pothos (desire, the Eros of the\\nGreek cosmogonies), and it was the beginning of the crea-\\ntion of all things. And it (Chaos) knew not its own pro-\\nduction, but from its embrace with the wind was generated\\nMot, which some call Ilus (mud), but others the putre-\\nfaction of a watery mixture. And from this sprang all\\nthe seed of the creation and the generation of the universe.\\nThis Mot, which seems to be connected\\nwith the Hebrew mai, water, is represented here\\nas a cosmogonic principle like Tehom or Tauthe.\\nIts birth from the Spirit and Chaos, and its sub-\\nsequent fertility, remind us of the world of\\nso many mythologies. As Renan remarks, it\\nseems to mark the beginning of a new creation.\\nThe watery origin of the earth is also very\\nfamiliar.\\nAnd there were certain animals without sensation from\\nwhich intelligent animals were produced, and these were\\ncalled Zophasimin that is, the overseers of the heavens\\nand they were formed in the shape of an egg, and from\\nMot shone forth the sun and the moon, the less and the\\ngreater stars.\\nAs Bunsen and Renan have remarked, a dislo-\\ncation of the text occurs here. We should doubt-\\nless read\\nAnd Mot was formed in the shape of an ^-g^ from\\nwhich the sun and moon, the greater and lesser stars shone\\nforth, and there were certain animals, etc.*\\nThe expression Zophasimin is doubtless\\nPhoenician and closely resembles the Hebrew\\nZophei Shamayim or heaven-watchers. Here\\nthey are apparently constellations. Then fol-\\nSee Baudissin, op. cit. 13, note i.", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0137.jp2"}, "138": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nlows a description of the formation, by natural\\ncauses, of winds, clouds, thunder and lightning.\\nThe second cosmogony, called The Generations,\\nis as follows\\nOf the wind, Colpias, and his wife, Baau, which is in-\\nterpreted night, were begotten two mortal men. ^on and\\nProtogonos, so-called, and ^on discovered food from\\ntrees.\\nThe introduction of these Greek names has\\ngiven rise to suspicions that do not seem to be\\nwell grounded, ^on and Protogonos appear to\\nbe Greek translations of Semitic words, Olam\\nand Kadmon Eternity, and The Man\\nfrom the East. Kolpia also is probably a Phoe-\\nnician word corresponding to the Hebrew Kol\\npiach,\\\\ or audible breath, while Baau is tm-\\ndoubtedly the Hebrew Bohu, or chaos. It is\\ncurious to encounter this Hebrew cosmogonic\\nprinciple here. If the Phoenician tradition is\\ngenuine, it reveals to us the extreme complexity\\nof the sources of our first chapter of Genesis.\\nIt is also interesting to observe that the first\\nfood of man is derived from the trees as in\\nGenesis.\\nThe immediate descendants of these were called Genus\\nand Genea, and they dwelt in Phoenicia, and when there\\nwere great droughts they stretched forth their hands to\\nheaven toward the sun, for him they supposed to be God,\\nthe only Lord of Heaven, calling him Beelsamin, which in\\nthe Phoenician dialect signifies Lord of Heaven, but among\\nthe Greeks is equivalent to Zeus.:|:\\nIn the Greek story (Odys. v. 333 Hesiod, Theog. 937) Kad-\\nmos is said to be the son of the Phoenician king Agenor. He is\\nrepresented as the founder of Thebes and as the introducer into\\nGreece of the Phoenician alphabet.\\nf Roth, Delitzsch, Schroder, Bunsen, Baudissin.\\nThe above translation, with slight modifications, is Cory s.", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0138.jp2"}, "139": {"fulltext": "V", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0139.jp2"}, "140": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0140.jp2"}, "141": {"fulltext": "Religion of the Phoenicians\\nThe Phoenician origin of this statement does\\nnot seem to be questionable. The central object\\nof worship in Phoenician mythology was un-\\ndoubtedly the sun. The double triad of deities\\ninvoked by Hannibal in his great oath to PhiHp\\nof Macedon was Sun, moon, earth and rivers,\\nmeadows and waters. The expression Beel-\\nsamin is plainly the Phoenician counterpart of the\\nHebrew Baal Shemesh, Lord Sun. From the\\nway Philo represents the worship of the sun as\\narising during a period of drought, it would ap-\\npear that he wished to represent the Phoenician\\nworship of the celestial bodies as following the\\nworship of terrestrial objects. On this point we\\ndo not know enough of the development of the\\nPhoenician religion to be able to say whether he\\nis correct or in error. The Phoenicians wor-\\nshipped sacred trees, stones, etc., with the rest of\\nthe Semitic world, but whether this cult preceded\\nthe worship of heavenly bodies I know no way\\nto determine. The remainder of the cosmogony\\nis taken up with the heroes and demigods who\\ndiscovered the arts of life, first of which was the\\nart of fire. In this cosmogony we discover (i)\\na primordial chaos mythically conceived and\\nnamed, (2) a moving spirit or breath, (3) the\\nworld egg, (4) the origin of the world from\\nwater.\\nWe come now to Babylon. For a long time\\nwe have possessed some acquaintance with the\\nBabylonian views of Creation through Greek\\nwriters, chiefly preserved by Eusebius, the\\nchurch historian, and other late authors; but in\\nrecent years our knowledge has been greatly en-\\nPolyb. vii. g, 2.\\n(109)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0141.jp2"}, "142": {"fulltext": ",^my__ o^\\nThe Babylonian Conception of tlie World.\\n(Taken from Jensen s Kosmologle der Babylonler).", "height": "2324", "width": "3203", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0142.jp2"}, "143": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0143.jp2"}, "144": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nriched by the deciphering of the cuneiform in-\\nscriptions. Instead of getting our knowledge\\nat second or third hand, we have it in the very\\nwords and letters in which it was originally writ-\\nten. It is a thousand pities that our Bible was\\nnot written on clay and preserved in this way.\\nSingularly, up to the present time only two\\nsuch accounts have been discovered, and they\\nboth resemble, in some respects, the two ac-\\ncounts of Genesis. Both the Babylonian inscrip-\\ntions, unfortunately, are mutilated. The longer\\nof the two was discovered in 1873 by George\\nSmith, of the British Museum. Its real purpose\\nis to relate the adventures of the god Marduk,\\nthe chief deity of Babylon. It was intended as a\\nhymn of praise to him and a description of his\\nvictory over a great monster called Tiamat, the\\npersonification of primeval chaos. The creation\\nstory is only an episode, and yet there is much in\\nit that reminds us of the Bible. There is the\\nsame reserve, the same disregard of details in the\\nendeavor to produce an impressive effect, and\\nthe same care of literary style. The Babylonian\\naccount, however, is poetical, and we see in it the\\nliterary device of parallelism which reminds us\\nof the Psalms. As far as it has been deciphered\\nit runs like this\\nThere was a time when the Heaven above was not\\nnamed. [Did not exist; of. Genesis.]\\nBelow, the earth bore no name.\\nApsu was there from the first, the source of both. [Apsu,\\nthe great deep.]\\nAnd raging Tiamat, the mother of both.\\nBut their waters were gathered together in a mass.\\nI do not include the so-called Cutha fragment, and it is right\\nto add that we possess two versions of the great Creation Epic.\\n(no)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0144.jp2"}, "145": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0145.jp2"}, "146": {"fulltext": "WATERS", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0146.jp2"}, "147": {"fulltext": "Babylonian Creation Epic\\nNo field was marked off, no soil was seen,\\nWhen none of the gods was as yet produced,\\nNo name mentioned, no fate determined.\\nThen were created the gods in their totality,\\nLakhmu and Lakhamu were created.\\nDays went by.\\nAnshar and Kishar were created.\\nMany days elapsed,\\nAnn, Bel and Ea were created,\\nAnshar, Ann.\\nHere it breaks off. A great deal of this, how-\\never, is perfectly plain and very important. Here\\nagain we find the primeval, watery, uncreated\\nchaos conceived as the origin of all things. This\\nchaos is called by two names Apsu and Tiamat\\nas the Babylonians were accustomed to de-\\nscribe their deities in pairs. Apsu is the male. So\\nfar as I know, his name is not found in Hebrew.\\nTiamat is the female principle of primitive chaos,\\nand what makes her so very interesting is that\\nthe Hebrew equivalent for her name is found in\\nthe first chapter of Genesis. When we read\\ndarkness was on the face of the abyss (Te-\\nhom), we encounter the same word and the\\nsame idea, only toned down from a person to a\\nthing.\\nThere are also several other conceptions that\\nremind us of Genesis. The time when the heav-\\nens and the earth were not named reminds us of\\nthe God who gave names to earth and heaven.\\nThe expression the waters were gathered to-\\ngether in a mass reminds us of Genesis. The\\nearth is described in the same way, as at first sub-\\nmerged and then as rising out of the water.\\nNow let us go on with the story of Tiamat.\\nThis mother of all chaos and confusion herself\\nbegins to create, but she produces only monsters\\n(III)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0147.jp2"}, "148": {"fulltext": "WATERS AliON L rUL F I\\nWINDOWS OH-HEA\\\\ f\\nHOIjNTAIN6,ag\\nUHEAtDJSEI}\\nl)U\\\\\\\\5 OF HEAVEN\\nn\\nI.\\nJl i: V-nA\\nI -v v II AN A t; A\\nA i^\\n.\\\\.i. n i; A\\nTlw Old Hebrew Conception of the .World.", "height": "2441", "width": "3135", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0148.jp2"}, "149": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0149.jp2"}, "150": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nand harmful, misshapen creatures. The inscrip-\\ntion continues\\nUmmu Khubur [another name of Tiamat, meaning, per-\\nhaps, hollow mother the Creator of everything,\\nadded\\nStrong warriors, creating great serpents.\\nSharp of tooth, merciless in attack,\\nWith poison instead of blood she filled their bodies.\\nFurious vipers she clothed with terror,\\nFitted them with awful splendor, made them high of\\nstature,\\nThat their countenance might inspire terror and arouse\\nhorror,\\nTheir bodies inflated, their attack irresistible.\\nShe set up basilisks, great serpents and monsters,\\nA great monster, a mad dog, a scorpion man.\\nAt their head she places a being named Kingu,\\nwhom she raises to the dignity of consort, and\\naddresses him in these words\\nThrough my word to thee I have made thee greatest among\\nthe gods.\\nThe rule over all the gods I have placed in thy hand,\\nThe greatest shalt thou be, thou, my consort, my only one.\\nThereupon Tiamat gives him the tablets of\\nfate, hangs them on his breast and dismisses him.\\nWe can easily see what Tiamat is doing. She,\\nthe mother of darkness and confusion, is plan-\\nning revolt against the heavenly gods, who, as\\nwe saw above, have come into being and -are\\nabout to invade her ancient domain. It is the\\nold story of the Titans revolting against Jove.\\nAlready Tiamat has got hold of the tablets of fate\\nthat control the destiny of the universe, and here\\nagain we find the admission we meet with so\\noften in Greek mythology, that these Httle gods\\nare not the supreme masters of life. Behind", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0150.jp2"}, "151": {"fulltext": "Marduk and Tiamat\\nthem and above them is a greater, more power-\\nful will that none can escape, called Destiny. To\\ncontinue this interesting Babylonian story, the\\ngods are very much alarmed. They plainly stand\\nin awe of raging Tiamat and her terrible confed-\\nerates. Anshar, who in this difificult crisis as-\\nsumes control of things, sends his son Anu with\\na soft message to Tiamat. Go, step before\\nTiamat, he says; may her liver be pacified, her\\nheart be softened. Anu obeys, but at the first\\nsight of her awful visage his heart fails and he\\ncomes flying back to his father. Then Anshar\\nin his perplexity turns to Marduk, in whose\\nhonor the whole hymn is written, and Marduk\\naccepts the mission without fear. The gods are\\ndelighted. They immediately assemble at a\\ngreat feast.\\nThey ate bread, they drank wine,\\nThe sweet wine took away their senses,\\nThey became drunk and their bodies swelled up.\\nFilled with the courage of wine, they begin to\\npraise Marduk.\\nThou art honored among the great gods.\\nThy destiny is unique, thy command is Anu.\\nMarduk, thou art honored among the great gods,\\nHenceforth thy order is absolute.\\nSome, however, doubt Marduk s ability to cope\\nwith Tiamat. They would like to see a sign. Ac-\\ncordingly Marduk consents to work a miracle.\\nA garment is placed in the midst of the gods.\\nSome one says.\\nCommand that the dress disappear,\\nThen command that the dress return.\\nMarduk does both.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0151.jp2"}, "152": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nAs he gave the command the dress disappeared,\\nHe spoke again and the dress was there.\\nMarduk then goes forth, armed not only with\\nbow and lance and a net to catch Tiamat,but with\\nTHE BATTLE OF TIAMAT AND MARDUK\\nwinds and thunderbolts as well. Having arrived\\nat Tiamat s abode, he boldly challenges her.\\nStand up, I and thou. Come, let us fight.\\nTiamat s wrath at this challenge is superb.\\nWhen Tiamat heard these words\\nShe acted as one possessed, her senses left her.\\nTiamat shrieked wild and loud,\\nTrembling and shaking down to her foundation\\nShe pronounced an incantation, uttered her sacred spell.\\nIn the terrible conflict that ensues Tiamat is de-\\nfeated.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0152.jp2"}, "153": {"fulltext": "The Making of Firmament\\nThe lord spread out his net in order to enclose her,\\nThe destructive wind which was behind him he sent forth\\ninto her face,\\nHe drove in the destructive wind so that she could not\\nclose her lips.\\nThe strong winds inflated her,\\nHer heart was beset, she opened still wider her mouth.\\nHe seized the spear and plunged it into her body,\\nHe pierced her entrails, tore through her heart,\\nHe seized hold of her, put an end to her life,\\nHe threw down her carcass and trampled upon her.\\n[Mark of contempt.]\\nThen Marduk attacked her confederates, tore\\nthe tablets of fate from Kingu s breast. This is\\nthe final victory. Henceforth Destiny is on the\\nside of the heavenly gods. Chaos is vanquished\\nforever. What follows is very curious. Mar-\\nduk, we are told, begins by cutting Tiamat as\\none does a flattened fish into halves. He spHts\\nher lengthwise.\\nThe one half he fastens as a covering to the heavens.\\nAttaching a bolt and placing there a guardian,\\nWith orders not to permit the waters to come out.\\nHere again, in this strange, crude myth, we\\nhave an echo of Genesis. It is evident that the\\ncanopy of heaven is meant. Such is the enor-\\nmous size of Tiamat that half of her flattened\\nbody is stretched across the heaven like a curtain.\\nIn short, it is the firmament that keeps the upper\\nwaters from coming down. But we have only to\\nremember who Tiamat was, or, rather, what she\\npersonified the chaotic condition of the earth\\nwhen all was confusion and the elements were\\nmingled together to see in this myth one of the\\nearly acts of Creation, that first separation of the\\nwaters which permitted dry land to appear and\\nthe formation of the earth to go forward.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0153.jp2"}, "154": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nCoupled with this is another idea which, as we\\nhave seen, appears also in Greek mythology and\\nis as old as the hills the resistance of the dark,\\nchaotic, brute world of matter to the light and\\nleading of the gods, the unwilHngness of Chaos\\nto become Cosmos. Are any traces of this\\nstruggle preserved in our Bible That, I think,\\nwill be a fascinating study which we will reserve\\nfor another chapter. To conclude this Babylo-\\nnian epic, the power of Tiamat is thoroughly\\nbroken and the gods are free to execute their\\nbenevolent designs.^ Marduk, who in conse-\\nquence of his victory has become chief of the\\ngods, promulgates fixed laws for the universe.\\nHe allots the gods their places in the heavens,\\nand in the various planets and fixed stars called\\nafter their names, and he reserves for himself the\\nmansion of Nibir, or Jupiter.\\nHe established stations for the great gods,\\nThe stars their Hkeness he set up as constellations.\\nHe fixed the year and marked the divisions,\\nThe twelve months he divided among these stars\\nFrom the beginning of the year till the close;\\nHe established the station of Nibir to indicate their\\nboundary\\nSo that there might be no deviation nor wandering from\\nthe course.*\\nHere we are reminded of the strange fact already\\nmentioned, that the sun, moon and stars were not\\ncreated until the fourth day. From the point of\\nview of the writer, they could not be created until\\nthere was a firmament to fix them in, and before\\nthe firmament was created it was necessary that\\nThe above translation Is Dr. Jastrow s. The most complete\\ntreatment of this poem is Frd. Delitzsch s Das Babylonische\\nWeltschopfung-sepos, Leipzig, 1896.\\n(Tie)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0154.jp2"}, "155": {"fulltext": "Second Babylonian Creation Story\\nchaos should be overcome and divided. We are\\nalso reminded, as Dr. Jastrow says, of the end\\nof the story of the Deluge, when after the period\\nof rain and storm God reestablished the regular\\ncourse of Nature and the fixed movements of the\\nsun, saying, So long as the earth shall be, seed-\\ntime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and\\nwinter, day and night, shall not fail.\\nIt is disappointing that the latter portion of\\nthe Creation Epic, which is very imperfect, does\\nnot mention specifically the creation of plants,\\nanimals and man. We must remember, how-\\never, that this poem, in spite of the name which\\nhas been attached to it by modern scholars, was\\nnot a systematic attempt to describe creation,\\nbut a hymn composed in honor of Marduk, who\\nseems to be conceived as the sun god engaged\\nin his annual struggle with the storms and floods\\nof winter. Attention, therefore, is concentrated\\non his combat with Tiamat rather than on his\\nsubsequent acts of creation. From the distinct-\\nness with which Berosus mentions the creation\\nof animals, and from his allusion to the cutting\\nofT of Bel s head, it would appear either that\\nimportant material has been lost from the Crea-\\ntion Epic or that another cuneiform creation\\nstory existed which we have not recovered.\\nThe second Babylonian account of Creation is\\nshorter, and is quite different from the first. It\\nwas first published by Pinches in 1891, and runs\\nas follows\\nThe bright house of the gods was not built on the bright\\nplace,\\nNo reed grew and no tree was formed,\\nNo brick was laid nor any brick edifice reared,\\n0^7)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0155.jp2"}, "156": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nNo house erected, no city built,\\nNo city reared, no conglomeration formed [of animals or\\nmen],\\nNippur was not reared, E-Kur not erected [Bel s temple\\nat Nippur],\\nErech was not reared, E-Anna not erected [Ishtar s tem-\\nple at Erech],\\nThe deep not formed, Eridu not reared.\\nThe bright house of the gods not yet constructed as a\\ndwelling.\\nThe world was all a sea,\\nMarduk again appears as a creator. His first act\\nis to provide the sea with a channel so that the\\nwaters may run off. Then the earth appears.\\nMarduk constructed an enclosure around the waters,\\nHe made dust and heaped it up in the enclosure.\\nThen comes an interesting Hne\\nMankind he created,\\nalthough in association with a goddess named\\nAruru, who is introduced very awkwardly. Then\\nfollows the creation of animals.\\nThe animals of the field, the living creatures of the field\\nhe created.\\nThe Tigris and Euphrates he formed in their places, gave\\nthem good names,\\nSoil grass, marsh, reed, and forest he created.\\nThe verdure of the field he produced.\\nThe lands, the marsh, and thicket,\\nThe wild cow with her young, the young wild ox,\\nThe ewe with her young, the sheep of the fold,\\nParks and forests,\\nThe goat and wild goat he brought forth.\\nThat is about all, except a few lines in which\\nMarduk is described as building houses and the\\ncity of Nippur.*\\nJastrow s translation.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0156.jp2"}, "157": {"fulltext": "Resemblance to -Genesis\\nNow there are several things in this tablet\\nwhich remind us of Genesis and which resemble\\nthe second account by the Jehovist writer more\\nthan the first account. The expression, No reed\\ngrew, no tree was formed, is very similar to\\nNot a shrub of the field was yet upon the earth,\\nnot a tree had sprouted. In the Babylonian\\npoem and in the Jehovist s account, attention is\\ncentred upon man and the works of men. In this\\ntablet cities are regarded as coeval with Creation,\\nand the first act of Cain is to build a city, al-\\nthough, according to Genesis, there was no one\\nto live in it but Cain and his wife. Again, in both\\naccounts man is described as created long before\\nanimals, and even before plants. In Genesis the\\nreason given for the non-existence of plant life is\\nthat there was not a man to till the soil. The\\npoint of view in both is that of civilization, cities\\nand cultivated fields. In both, the rivers Tigris\\nand Euphrates are mentioned, and in both, a\\npark, or paradise, is prepared. If the Babylo-\\nnian tablet were not so fragmentary, there would\\nprobably be other points of resemblance.\\nAnd yet, in both these tablets, interesting as\\nthey are, the differences between them and Gen-\\nesis are far deeper and more striking than the re-\\nsemblances. To mention only one thing, the\\ngods, who are many, are represented as coming\\nforth out of chaos. Both these traditions are\\nvery ancient (the Babylonian undoubtedly the\\nolder), but they were worked out on different\\nsoils, in accordance with the spiritual life and the\\nspiritual needs of the two peoples. There lies\\nthe difference.\\nApart from the cuneiform Creation tablets, we\\n9)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0157.jp2"}, "158": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nhave two other Babylonian accounts of Creation;\\na brief fragment preserved by Damascius and a\\nlonger and more interesting story in Berosus.\\nTo these I now invite your attention. Damas-\\ncius was a Neo-Platonist of Damascus, who\\nlived in the sixth century of our era. The work\\nfrom which we derive our knowledge of Baby-\\nlonian cosmogony is called Difficulties and So-\\nlutions of First Principles. His fragment is\\nas follows\\nBut the Babylonians, like the rest of the Barbarians,\\npass over in silence the One Principle of the universe, and\\nthey substitute two, Tauthe and Apason, making Apason\\nthe husband of Tauthe, whom they call the mother of the\\ngods. From these proceeds an only begotten son, Moy-\\nmis, which I consider the intelligible world proceeding\\nfrom the two principles. From them also another progeny-\\nis derived, Dache and Dachus, and again a third, Kissare\\nand Assorus, from which last come Anos, Illinos and Aos.\\nThe son of Aos and Dauke is Belos, who they say is the\\nfabricator of the world, the Demiurge.\\nIn spite of small discrepancies, this pale and\\nenfeebled account tallies remarkably with the\\nstatements of the Creation epic. We note again\\nthe inability of the Babylonians to conceive a\\ntrue creation by the word or power of the gods.\\nThe male and female principles give birth to the\\ngods, one of the youngest of whom, Bel, as in\\nBerosus account, becomes a creator. Tauthe\\nand Apason are evidently Tiamat and Apsu,\\nalthough it surprises us a little to hear that their\\nchild is called Moymis, or Mummu, which, in\\nthe cuneiform, is a name applied to Tiamat\\nWhat remains of it has been pubhshed by J. Kopp under the\\ntitle Damascii Philos. Qusestiones de Primis Principiis. Frank-\\nfort, 1828. See c. 125, p. 384.\\n(120)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0158.jp2"}, "159": {"fulltext": "Berosus Cosmogony\\nherself. This is evidently another version. The\\nidentification of Moymis with the intelligible\\nworld is the Neo-Platonic fancy of Damascius\\nand quite foreign to the narrative. Dache and\\nDachus are evidently a copyist s error for Lache\\nand Lachus; i. e., Lakhmu and Lakhamu. Kis-\\nsare and Assorus are Anshar and Kishar, whose\\nbirths are mentioned together in the Creation\\nepic. Anos is certainly Anus. By Aos we na-\\nturally understand Ea, though according to Jen-\\nsen this is doubtful.\\nBerosus account is much more interesting\\nThere was a time, he says,* when all was darkness\\nand waters, from which wonderful beings of singular form\\narose. There were men with two wings, some also with\\nfour wings and two faces. They had but one body and\\ntwo heads, the one of a man, the other of a woman, and\\nlikewise their several organs were male and female. f\\nOther men had legs and horns of goats or the feet of\\nhorses. Others united the hind quarters of a horse with\\nthe body of a man resembling hippocentaurs. There\\narose also bulls with men s heads, dogs with four-fold\\nbodies terminating in fishes tails; horses also, and men\\nwith dogs heads, and other animals with the heads and\\nbodies of horses and the tails of fishes; in short, creatures\\nin which were combined the limbs of every species of\\nanimal. In addition to these were fishes, reptiles, serpents\\nand other monstrous animals, which counterfeited one an-\\nother. Pictures of them are preserved as votive offerings\\nin the temple of Bel. Over them all presided a woman\\ncalled Omorca, which in the Chaldean language is\\nThamte,t in Greek, Thalassa (of the same numerical value\\nas Selene). When things were in this situation Bel came\\nand split the woman asunder. Of one half of her body h.^\\nmade the earth, of the other half, the heavens, and he\\nQuoted by Eusebius, Chronicorum Liber Prior, ed.\\nSchoene, 14-18.\\nf This reminds us of the Jewish conceptions of Adam and\\nEve.\\nX Cod. Thalatth, corrected by R. Smith, Z. A. vi. 339, quoted\\nhere frorn Gunkel, S. and C. 19, note i.\\n0u6f)Ka 6E\\\\r]vr] 301.\\n(121)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0159.jp2"}, "160": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ndestroyed the animals that belonged to her. All this he\\n(Berosus) says was intended for an allegorical descrip-\\ntion of natural processes. The whole universe was once\\na fluid, in which rose the animals described above. How-\\never, Bel, the Greek Zeus, divided the darkness through\\nthe middle, separated earth and heaven from each other\\nand established thereby the order of the universe. The\\ncreatures, however, could not endure the light and per-\\nished.* When Bel saw the earth without inhabitants and\\nfruit, he commanded one of the gods to cut off his (Bel s)\\nhead and to mingle the flowing blood with earth and\\nthence to form other men and animals capable of endur-\\ning the air. Bel also completed the stars, sun, moon and\\nthe five planets. Such, according to Alexander Poly-\\nhistor, is the account which Berosus gives in his first\\nbook.f This god is obliged to cut of\u00c2\u00a5 his own head and\\nthe other gods must mingle the flowing blood with earth\\nand make men out of it that they may be intelligent and\\npartake of the divine understanding.\\nIn spite of the roundabout way by which Be-\\nrosus account has come to us, its general con-\\nsistency with the cuneiform account is very strik-\\ning. We find here, as in the creation epic, the\\nprimordial chaos of darkness and waters ante-\\nrior to the gods, presided over by Mother Tia-\\nmat, here called Thamte. The animals and\\nstrange composite beings brought forth by her,\\nthough more particularly described, are of the\\nsame order as the strong warriors, great\\nserpents, furious vipers, great monsters,\\nand mad dogs, raging monsters, fish\\nmen, scorpion men, etc., described in the\\npoem, and also in the Cutha creation fragment.\\nIn both instances the conception seems to be\\nthat chaos is fruitful and capable of producing\\nThe text of this sentence is according to Gutschmid s emen-\\ndation.\\nf What follows appears to be Eusebius contemptuous com-\\nment (Budde, Gunkel).\\n(122)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0160.jp2"}, "161": {"fulltext": "Criticism of Berosus\\nlife but without the light and intelligence of the\\ngods, it gives birth to confusion and monstrosi-\\nties. In Berosus account these misshapen prod-\\nigies are plainly animals of the water, incapable\\nof enduring light or air. When the water is\\ndrawn off they die. The name given to the mis-\\ntress of chaos, Omorca, which Gunkel writes\\nOm orqa [je], I beHeve he may claim the\\ncredit of explaining. Most scholars had as-\\nsumed it to be a Babylonian word, which is some-\\nwhat surprising, as both the Babylonian and\\nthe Greek equivalents are given in the text.\\nThis being the case, Gunkel points out that\\nOmorca must be a word of the Aramaic language\\nwhich was spoken in Babylonia in Berosus time.\\nHe considers it to mean mother of the deep, or\\nmother of the lower world, which is not unlike\\nthe epithet hollow mother, bestowed on Tia-\\nmat in the Creation poem. Just as in that poem,\\nbefore creation can take place Marduk divides\\nTiamat, so here Bel splits this woman asunder;\\nof one half of her he makes the earth, and of the\\nother, the firmament of the sky. The meaning\\nis obviously the same as in the Creation epic and\\nin Genesis. In fact, the rational meaning of\\nthis strange act is plainly stated by Berosus. The\\nsplitting of the dark chaos and the establishment\\nof the firmament admits Hght and draws off the\\nsuperfluous waters. The subsequent acts of\\nCreation are confused, owing to the evident con-\\ndensation of the narrative, and yet the creation\\nof animals and men is plainly mentioned, and\\nfrom the allusion to the unfruitfulness of the\\nearth which reminds us of our Jehovist s account,\\nit would appear that the creation of plant life was\\n(123)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0161.jp2"}, "162": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\noriginally included. Last of all, even later than\\nin Genesis, is an express statement of the crea-\\ntion of the sun, moon, fixed stars and planets.\\nThere remains one very strange conception, as\\nto which Eusebius faith failed, and which is not\\nalluded to in the cuneiform account I mean\\nBel s sacrifice of his own head and the mingling\\nof his blood with the clay, out of which men and\\nanimals were to be made. If this remarkable\\nstatement stood alone we might regard it as an\\nutter misconception, a libel on the good sense of\\nBerosus. But as we read Eusebius scornful\\ncomment that this was done in order that men\\nmight partake of the divine nature, a suspicion\\nbegins to dawn on us. We remember that in the\\nfirst account of Genesis, man is said to be formed\\nin the image of God. We also recall the fact that\\nto the Semite the essence of fife and the soul is\\nblood. It is therefore possible that the author\\nof this curious myth was endeavoring to express\\nin his crude way his sense of our participation of\\nthe divine nature, and we also remember that in\\nour second account Jahveh breathed into man s\\nnostrils (literally, blew into his nose) the breath\\nof life, and so man became a living being. These\\ntwo essences of life breath and blood are after\\nall but variations of the same idea.\\nThere is one other matter that I wish to touch\\non the universal opinion that before the world\\ntook on its present form and beauty, chaos\\nreigned, and there was a very general belief in the\\nexistence of the world egg. Does any trace of\\nthat tgg lurk in Genesis? Only in the expression,\\nAnd the Spirit of God was brooding tenderly\\non the face of the waters. That raises the ques-", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0162.jp2"}, "163": {"fulltext": "Chaos and a World Egg\\ntion which is supposed to embrace the whole of\\nscience, Which came first, the conscious hen or\\nthe unconscious egg? And the answer which\\nGenesis gives to that question is the only true\\nanswer. In order to account for anything, the\\nhen and the egg and the nest are all necessary.\\nLet him that heareth understand.\\nIn regard to the chaos of waters out of which\\nthe world arose, we may say two things: Some-\\nthing within us tells us that everything finite had\\na beginning. Just as every\\\\)bject the earth pro-\\nduces had a beginning, so did the earth itself. The\\nconception of the earth rising out of the watery\\nchaos, which is well nigh universal, may have\\narisen in this way. The great peoples of an-\\ntiquity, whose traditions spread everywhere, all\\nlived on low, alluvial plains along the banks of\\ngreat rivers that overwhelmed them almost every\\nwinter: the Egyptians, in the plain of the Nile;\\nthe forefathers of the Hebrews and Chaldeans,\\non the Tigris and Euphrates; the Hindus, on^\\nthe Indus and Ganges. Now this phenom-\\nenon of the earth rising out of the waters oc-\\ncurred before their eyes every year. In the\\nspring, as the waters subsided, the dry and fertile\\nland appeared, and life of every kind broke forth\\nanew. It was, therefore, very natural for them\\nto think of a first springtide, when life broke\\nforth for the first time, especially as it was the\\nwarm, rich deposit of the river that made their\\nland so fertile, and since, when the river did not\\nrise, when the land in the spring did not come\\nforth out of the waters, instead of life and plenty,\\ndeath and famine stared them in the face. What\\nmakes this more probable is the fact that the\\n(1^5)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0163.jp2"}, "164": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nGreeks, who lived in a very different country,\\nhad no such tradition. With them the earth does\\nnot rise out of the sea. On the contrary, the sea\\nis created by the broad-bosomed earth.*\\nI have mentioned only one of the many motives which have\\ninduced almost all nations to regard water as the primordial\\nelement out of which the earth arose. For further discussion of\\nthis question, see Ueberweg s Geschichte der Philosophie, on\\nThales Brinton s Myths of the New World, 144, 159, 227 ff.\\nand Brugsch, Religion und Mythologie, pp. 106, 107.\\n(126)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0164.jp2"}, "165": {"fulltext": "Chaos the Datum of all Cosmogonies\\nChapter Seven:\\n^be Chaos Monster in the Old Testament\\nIN the previous chapter we examined the va-\\nrious accounts of Creation handed down\\nby several of the great civiHzed nations of an-\\ntiquity. Those accounts naturally differed widely\\nfrom one another, but in regard to the starting\\npoint of Creation they were all in agreement.\\nHindus, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, and\\nPhoenicians all assumed as the origin of the\\nworld an uncreated chaos of darkness, in which\\nall the elements of the world existed in a state of\\nutter confusion. The work of Creation consisted\\nin separating the elements of this primeval chaos\\nand reducing them to order. In this idea they all\\nagree in a general way with the first chapter of\\nGenesis, which also assumes a preexistent chaos\\nas the material out of which the world was\\nformed. And the earth was a waste and an\\nempty chaos, and darkness was on the face of the\\nabyss (Tehom). It is not stated definitely that\\nthis chaos, the raw material of Creation, was\\ncreated by God out of nothing. On the contrary,\\nThe Zoroastrian Creation story is an exception. It, how-\\never, is hardly entitled to be called an ancient cosmogony, so\\nthoroughly is it infused with the principles of Zoroastrian theo-\\n^ogy-\\n(127)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0165.jp2"}, "166": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nits existence is tacitly assumed. It is introduced\\nwithout a word of explanation. What God\\ncreated is the heaven and earth, the Cosmos,\\nthe adorned world of light and the orderly se-\\nquence of nature. The word create (bara)\\ndoes not convey the idea of creation out of noth-\\ning. Its original meaning is to cut, to hew out,\\nto dress stones. It therefore rather presupposes\\nthe existence of a material. When we reached\\nthe two Creation tablets of Babylon, however,\\nwe found their points of resemblance with Gene-\\nsis more numerous and striking. It is certainly\\ninteresting that up to this time only two accounts\\nof Creation have been discovered, and that both\\nresemble, in certain respects, our two accounts.\\nFor convenience sake I will give a summary of\\nthe story, in order to bring out a very important\\nconception, to which this chapter will be de-\\nvotee\\nhere was a time when the Heaven above was not named.\\nBelow the earth bore no name,\\nApsu was there from the first, the source of both, [Apsu,\\nthe great deep,]\\nAnd raging Tiamat, the mother of both.\\nApsu and Tiamat, the male and female prin-\\nciples, are here introduced as the personification\\nof primeval chaos, from whose union everything,\\nincluding the gods themselves, is born. Apsu,\\nthe male principle, does not figure prominently\\nin what follows. He seems to be introduced only\\nbecause the Babylonians always conceived their\\ngods as existing in pairs. As far as is known,\\nhis name does not appear in the Bible. Tiamat,\\non the contrary, is a very important personage,", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0166.jp2"}, "167": {"fulltext": "Tehom and Tiamat\\nand what makes her interesting to us is that her\\nname occurs on the first page of Genesis. When\\nwe read darkness was on the face of the abyss,\\nthe word used, Tehom, is only the Hebrew\\nequivalent for Tiamat. Her history, therefore,\\nis of great importance to us. The first thing\\nTiamat does is to plan a revolt against the heav-\\nenly gods whom she and Apsu have brought into\\nexistence. To aid her in this attempt she creates\\nterrible, misshapen monsters the crab, the mad\\ndog, the scorpion-man and sets them in high\\nplaces. These are evidently those constellations\\nof the sky the children of night which were\\nconceived as the causes of misfortune and dis-\\nease. She obtains possession of the tablets of\\nfate and hangs them round Kingu s neck. The\\ngods are very much alarmed. Anshar, their\\nchief, sends his son Anu to her in hope of mollify-\\ning her, but in vain.\\nThen Anshar turns to Marduk, his younger\\nson, the chief deity of Babylon, in whose honor\\nthe whole poem is written, and Marduk at once\\nsets out to fight with her. The terrible wrath\\nof Tiamat and the battle that follows are de-\\nscribed in glowing language. Marduk con-\\nquers. He kills Tiamat and tramples on her\\nbody as a mark of contempt. Then a very\\nstrange thing follows. He takes the vast body\\nof Tiamat, flattened out, we are told, like a salted\\nfish, and splits it lengthwise. Then come these\\nwords in the inscription\\nThe one half [of her body] he fastens as a covering to\\nthe heavens,\\nAttaching a bolt and placing there a guardian,\\nWith orders not to permit the waters to come out.\\n(129)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0167.jp2"}, "168": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThe resemblance between this account and\\nGenesis is unmistakable as far as it goes. We\\nhave in both the primeval chaos out of which\\nCreation comes, called by the same name; in Gen-\\nesis, Tehom; in Babylonian, Tiamat. The first\\nact of Creation is the division of this ancient chaos\\nby a firmament which separates the waters above\\nfrom the waters beneath. Not until this firma-\\nment is fixed^ can the sun, moon and stars ap-\\npear, because there is nothing to fasten them to;\\nbut immediately afterward, in both the Baby-\\nlonian and the Hebrew account, they are created\\nand fixed in the firmament.\\nAt the first glance, and to the casual observer,\\nthe two ideas of chaos Tehom and Tiamat\\nseem to have almost nothing to do with each\\nother. Tiamat, the Babylonian chaos, is con-\\nceived as a person; Tehom, the great abyss, is\\nconceived absolutely impersonally as a purely\\nphysical phenomenon. Of the mythical side of\\nchaos, of its stubborn resistance to the will of\\nGod, of its revolt against Heaven, of the neces-\\nsity for a struggle in which this wild personifica-\\ntion of darkness is killed and trodden under foot,\\nin the first chapter of Genesis there is not a trace.\\nIt might therefore appear that the enthusiastic\\nAssyriologists see resemblances everywhere\\nwhen they wish to see them and close their eyes\\nresolutely to all differences that are not forced\\nupon them. One of the most brilliant and\\noriginal writers on this subject has made the\\nsuggestion that although the personal, resisting\\ncharacter of chaos may have disappeared entirely\\nGunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit.\\nGottingen, 1895.\\n(130)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0168.jp2"}, "169": {"fulltext": "Chaos a Mythical Monster\\nin the* hands of the Priestly Writer, who is a\\nsworn foe to all mythology, yet if such a strange\\nand withal fascinating conception of chaos ever\\nexisted in the minds of the old Israehtes, it could\\nnot well have disappeared without leaving some\\ntrace behind. The passages Gunkel brings for-\\nward sufficiently show that those strange texts\\nso different from anything else in the Bible, over\\nwhich many of us have puzzled all our lives and\\nwhose meaning we have never been able to\\nunderstand have a meaning, and that they\\nthrow a new light on the part which ancient\\ntradition plays, not only in Genesis, but in many\\nother passages of the Old Testament.\\nThe question is Does the idea of chaos,\\nconceived in the form of a mythical monster\\nwhich resists the will of God, and which must be\\ndestroyed before the work of Creation can go\\nforward, exist at all in the Old Testament? In\\nthe first chapter of Genesis we find the counter-\\npart of old Tiamat, whom Marduk slew, in Te-\\nhom, the dark abyss of waters, but in Genesis the\\nmyth is wholly rationalized; Tehom is a thing,\\nnot a person, and as such it is incapable of oppos-\\ning the will of God. Tehom is not killed and\\npierced with a dart, it is simply divided. The\\nmythical aspect of chaos has wholly disappeared.\\nIt is, however, quite possible that our author in\\nhis picture of chaos was influenced by the Egyp-\\ntian cosmogony, in which chaos was conceived\\nimpersonally. But how is it with other chapters\\nand passages Are there any which preserve the\\noriginal characteristics of chaos, conceived as a\\nhuge, angry sea-monster, the living genius of the\\nabyss? That is a question well worth lingering\\n(131)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0169.jp2"}, "170": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nover, for it will not only throw light on several\\npassages of the Bible which we have read all our\\nlives without understanding, but it will also show\\nus to what an extent the most inspired writers\\nwere influenced by the ancient traditions of the\\nHebrew people.* Let us now look at a few pas-\\nsages. Isaiah, li. 9\\nAwake, awake, put on strength, O arm of Jahveh\\nAwake as in days of yore, the ages of far-off antiquity.\\nWas it not thou who didst shatter Rahab and shame the\\nDragon?\\nWas it not thou who didst dry up the sea, the waters of\\nthe great flood [Tehom]\\nWho didst make the depths of the sea a way for the re-\\ndeemed to pass over?\\nThere is here undoubtedly an allusion to the\\ncrossing of the Red Sea, but that by no means\\nexhausts the meaning of these verses. The pas-\\nsage of the narrow arm of the Red Sea could\\nhardly be called drying up the waters of the\\ngreat flood. Moreover, though Rahab and the\\nDragon may have been figuratively employed\\nfor Egypt and Pharaoh, assuredly that was not\\ntheir original meaning. The shattering of Rahab,\\nwhich means raging monster, and the sham-\\ning of the Dragon, stand parallel to Thou didst\\ndry up the sea, the waters of the great flood.\\nThe very expression, as in the days of yore,\\nthe ages of far-off antiquity, points back to the\\nmost remote past. The destruction of Pharaoh s\\nhost in the Red Sea is compared to the destruc-\\ntion of the old sea monster here called Rahab,\\nand that monster was destroyed by the drying up\\nThe argument which follows, with the translation and inter-\\npretation of passages, is largely taken from Gunkel.\\n(132)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0170.jp2"}, "171": {"fulltext": "Rahab\\nof the depths in which she dweh; that is to say,\\nby the destruction of Tehom, which is the word\\nused in Genesis. The very expression Thou\\ndidst shame the Dragon reminds us of Mar-\\nduk s putting his foot on Tiamat. The force of\\nall this will become more evident when we have\\nlooked at a few more passages. Psalm Ixxxix.\\n10 ff.:\\nThou art Lord over the arrogant sea,\\nWhen its surges roar Thou hushest them.\\nThou hast shamed Rahab Hke carrion,\\nWith strong arm hast Thou scattered Thy foes.\\nThe heavens are Thine, Thine is the earth,\\nThe world and what fills it Thou hast established,\\nThe North and the South Thou hast created,\\nTabor and Hermon praise Thy name.\\nIn this hymn, Jahveh is praised for the conquest\\nof Rahab, who here, too, is placed parallel to\\nthe sea. Rahab, the great monster of the deep,\\nis represented before Creation as insolently lift-\\ning herself up against Jahveh, but He puts her\\ndown and kills her. In the expression Thou\\nhas shamed Rahab hke carrion, we find some al-\\nlusion to the terrible vengeance Jahveh wreaked\\non her corpse, as Marduk insulted the corpse of\\nTiamat. Rahab has her confederates, but these\\nother enemies of Jahveh are chased away and\\nscattered. Only after Rahab is killed and put\\ndown does the work of Creation follow. So here\\nagain we have the same conception. A sea\\nmonster, Rahab, with her confederates, lifts her-\\nself in rage against Jahveh. He puts her down\\nand kills her, takes revenge on her corpse,\\nand then goes on to create the heaven and the\\nearth.", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0171.jp2"}, "172": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nVery similar to this in many respects is Job,\\nxxvi. 12, 13\\nWith His might has He stilled the sea.\\nBy His intelligence has He crushed Rahab to pieces.\\nThe pillars of Heaven shudder before Him,\\nHis hand shames the fleeing serpent.\\nHere, too, Rahab, the chaos monster, is placed\\nparallel to the raging sea again we hear of sham-\\ning Rahab as Marduk shamed Tiamat. But what\\nis most surprising is the allusion to the bolts or\\npillars of heaven. After Marduk had spHt Tia-\\nmat in twain and out of one half had made the fir-\\nmament, we read that he attached bolts there and\\nset a guard so that the waters should not fall\\nthrough. In this passage of Job, we find a second\\nmonster called the fleeing serpent, just as in\\nIsaiah we saw the Dragon beside Rahab, and in\\nthe Babylonian inscription Tiamat and Apsu.\\nNow let us turn to Psalm Ixxiv. 12 fif.\\nThou, Jahveh, art my king from of old.\\nThou hast split the sea with might,\\nHast crushed the heads of dragons till on the water they\\nfloated.\\nThou hast shattered the heads of Leviathan,\\nThou hast given him as meat to the jackals of the wilder-\\nness,\\nFor spring and brook Thou hast cloven an opening,\\nAncient streams hast Thou dried up.\\nThe day is Thine, the night is Thine,\\nStarry light and sun hast Thou provided.\\nAll divisions on the earth hast Thou laid down,\\nThou makest summer and winter.\\nWe see how frequently the same idea is re-\\npeated. In every one of these passages, before\\nCreation, before earth and sun and moon are\\nmade, there are chaotic monsters of the deep to\\nbe destroyed. Then Creation follows. In this\\n0^34)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0172.jp2"}, "173": {"fulltext": "Leviathan and the Dragon of the Deep\\npsalm the author speaks plainly of God s dividing\\nthe old, chaotic sea, and parallels it with crushing\\nthe heads of the dragons until they float on the\\nwaters. The ancient channels are dried up and\\nnew channels are made. Here again two kinds\\nof monsters are described, the dragon of the\\ndeep and a new monster called Leviathan, who\\nhas many heads. What follows is very interest-\\ning. Thou hast smitten the heads of Leviathan\\nin pieces and gavest him as food to the beasts of\\nthe desert. This strange passage, for the first\\ntime, perhaps, becomes inteUigible. The dry\\ndesert is conceived in opposition to water, the\\nhome of Leviathan, the sea monster.\\nAfter Jahveh has crushed the heads of the\\nmonster of the sea, he throws him on to dry land\\nwhere the sands drink him up. So the old chan-\\nnels of water are dried, and new springs break\\nforth in the desert.\\nThe religious meaning with which this myth\\nwas employed as an allegory by the Psalmist is\\nperfectly plain. Just as Jahveh has overcome\\nHis enemies of old and slain the dragon and\\ncrushed the heads of insolent Leviathan, so will\\nHe do again. Therefore His people may trust\\nin Him without fear.\\nAnother passage of the same sort is Isaiah,\\nxxvii. I\\nIn that day will Jahveh punish with His sword so hard\\nand great and strong,\\nLeviathan the fleeing serpent, and Leviathan the crooked\\n[coiled] serpent.\\nAnd will slay the Dragon in the sea.\\nThis is in the form of a prophecy, but it goes\\nback to the same old story. Leviathan, the flee-\\n035)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0173.jp2"}, "174": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ning serpent, is the same conception as Tiamat\\nfleeing from Marduk. Mr. F. Wells Williams, of\\nNew Haven, has an Assyrian cylinder, repre-\\nsenting the dragon flying from Marduk, who is\\npursuing her with a sword. It will be noticed in\\nthis chapter of Isaiah that Jahveh kills Leviathan\\nwith a sword, which is described in a particular\\nway as hard and great and strong. The coiled\\nor crooked serpent is probably the mythical\\nocean which the Greeks as well as the Baby-\\nlonians beHeved to coil circlewise round the\\nworld. Three monsters are mentioned here\\nLeviathan, the fleeing serpent; Leviathan, the\\ncoiled serpent, and the Dragon of the sea; but\\nthey are all mythical monsters of chaos and the\\nabyss, whom Jahveh slays with His sword.\\nWe will mention only one other passage of this\\nnature, draw the needful conclusions, and then\\nreturn to Genesis. It is Job s celebrated account\\nof Leviathan in the fortieth and the forty-first\\nchapters. This wonderful description is generally\\nsupposed to apply to the crocodile of the Nile.\\nMuch of the description does apply to the croco-\\ndile very well, but there is a good deal more that,\\neven allowing for poetic exaggeration, does not\\ncorrespond with any known animal that ever\\nswam in the water or walked on land. The words\\nof Job are these\\nCanst thou draw out Leviathan with a fish hook?\\nWilt thou hold his tongue fast In a noose?\\nWilt thou lay a hook in his mouth,\\nAnd bore through his cheeks with a ring?\\nWill he supplicate thee for pity,\\nAnd address thee with sweet words?\\nWill he make a compact with thee,\\nAnd engage himself to serve thee forever?\\n(^36)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0174.jp2"}, "175": {"fulltext": "Leviathan in Job\\nWilt thou play with him as with a sparrow,^\\nAnd tie him with a string to amuse thy children?\\nAll this is intended to prove that man can\\nnever overcome Leviathan. Job is convinced\\nthat men will never be able to catch him. A great\\ndeal of this applies well enough to fishing, and\\nperhaps even to fishing for crocodiles, with which,\\nwe maybe sure, silk lines and split bamboos would\\nbe of little account. But as soon as Job speaks of\\nLeviathan s uttering prayers of suppHcation\\nand making compacts, we can see that it is not\\nthe crocodile of which he is thinking, though the\\nexpression crocodile tears has lasted from\\nthat day to this. Leviathan is plainly one of the\\nold brood of mythical animals of the sea, the\\nspirit of the deep who regulates the tides. This\\nbecomes plainer as we go on\\nLay thy hand on him but once,\\nThou wilt not a second time think of war;\\nThen will all thy self-confidence be found a lie.\\nA god would lower his glance before him,\\nAn angel would hesitate to awake him.\\nAnd who would venture to walk in front of him?\\nWho has fought with him and come out of it alive?\\nUnder the whole Heaven, not one.\\nCertainly this is no crocodile.\\nHe makes the deep to seethe like a pot.\\nThe sea like a boiling kettle.\\nThe bed of the rivers is his path,\\nYou would think that the sea had white hair.\\nOn earth there is not his like.\\nHe is created to be lord of the lower world [Tehom].\\nIt is he whom all the mighty fear.\\nIt is he who is king over all the proud.\\nKing of the mighty, Lord of Tehom, the\\n(137)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0175.jp2"}, "176": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nabyss, he is the true child of chaos, whom God\\nalone can overcome.\\nUnder the guidance of Gunkel, we have now\\nbrought together facts enough to prove con-\\nclusively that the idea of chaos conceived as a\\nliving monster or a number of monsters was per-\\nfectly familiar to the writers of the Old Testa-\\nment, and was freely employed by them in hymns\\nand for other religious purposes. In the Book of\\nGenesis the word Tehom occurs, around which\\nthe whole Babylonian myth was built, but in Gen-\\nesis every mythical trait has disappeared. Not so,\\nhowever, in Isaiah, in Job, and in many Psalms.\\nLeviathan, Behemoth, Rahab, the fleeing ser-\\npent, the crooked serpent, the great dragon, all\\nthe children of chaos, are conceived as living, or\\nas once alive, and as rising in insolence against\\nJahveh. Jahveh is obliged to fight with them\\nand to kill them before the work of Creation can\\ncontinue. In our accounts, as in the Babylonian,\\nthe dead bodies of these monsters are not buried,\\nbut are used in making the world. Job speaks of\\nthe bars and bolts of Heaven, with which Marduk\\nfastened the body of Tiamat Genesis assigns to\\nthe firmament the function of separating the\\nwaters above from the waters below. The Psalm\\ntells how the body of the dead Leviathan nour-\\nishes life in the desert, i. e., supplies men and\\nbeasts and plants with water. AH this shows\\nus how closely the old traditions of Babylon and\\nIsrael were related, and what a place these\\nmyths occupied in the background of even the\\nmost religious minds. If this study has shown\\nus the significance of those strange figures of the\\nOld Testament, Rahab, Leviathan, the great\\n(138)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0176.jp2"}, "177": {"fulltext": "Original Meaning of Tehom in Genesis\\ndragon, the fleeing serpent, etc., we need not\\nbegrudge the time.\\nThere is one conclusion to be drawn from these\\npassages that is very interesting. We have\\nseen what an important part was played by\\nMother Tiamat in the Babylonian cosmogony.\\nIn our first account of Creation in Genesis, the\\nsame conception remains concealed in the old\\nword Tehom. But in Genesis this strange per-\\nsonality has paled into a mere thing not so, how-\\never, in the passages I have cited from Isaiah,\\nJob, and the Psalms. There the old chaos\\nmonster, whether it is called Rahab or Levia-\\nthan or the crooked serpent, reappears in all its\\nnative energy. Erom Isaiah s allusion to this\\nmythical being as living in the days of old, in\\nthe ages of far-off antiquity, it was plainly the\\nsubject of a very ancient myth. From the casual\\nmanner in which the sacred writers introduce\\nthis strange being, without a word of explana-\\ntion, it was apparently familiar enough to their\\ncontemporaries. It is therefore not too bold\\nto conjecture that at one time the raging\\nTiamat, or, rather, her Hebrew counterpart,\\nplayed a far more important role in the Hebrew\\nCreation story than she does now; and that in the\\nnumerous recensions our story has undergone,\\nher crude and revolting personality has been\\ngradually eHminated until nothing but her name\\nremains. From the way she is associated in\\nJob with the pillars of heaven it is plain that\\nin the Hebrew tradition, also, her divided body\\nformed the firmament of the sky, a fact which is\\nstill evident in the first chapter of Genesis.\\nAs to the document of Genesis in which this\\n(139)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0177.jp2"}, "178": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmyth was preserved, it would be rash to speak\\nwith confidence. We remember, however, that\\nthe Jehovist s account of Creation is short and\\nevidently much mutilated, that the Jehovist lived\\ncenturies before the Priestly Writer, that he was\\nmuch more lenient than the latter toward the\\nancient traditions of his people, and that he\\nactually speaks in the blessing of Joseph of the\\ndeep (Tehom) that croucheth beneath. It may\\nwell be that in his original story of Creation Tia-\\nmat was finely represented with all her mythical\\ncharacteristics, and that she occupied a promi-\\nnent place in his narrative. Later revisers, of-\\nfended at the crudity of the conception, felt\\nobliged to remove a body that had become alto-\\ngether foreign to the religion of Israel. In re-\\nmoving her they were obliged to cut deep into\\nthe Jehovist s original account. If this surmise\\nis correct, religion probably gained, but science\\nhas suffered an irreparable loss. The idea under-\\nlying all these strange conceptions is also inter-\\nesting. Separated from its purely mythical\\nsetting, it is simply this: The material out of\\nwhich the world is made offers a kind of resist-\\nance to the will of God. Chaos is old and it is\\nstubborn. In the end it is overcome and killed,\\nbut it resists as long as possible. Now, although\\nthis may not be the correct and final solution of\\nthe problem of Creation, it is a temptingly easy\\nsolution, and we need not wonder that it has\\nfound a place in almost all religions and in a\\ngreat many philosophies.* There is something\\nIt would hardly be an exaggeration to say that the sense of\\nthis antithesis runs through all mythologies. The names change,\\nthe opposition of intractable matter to the idea remains the\\n(140)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0178.jp2"}, "179": {"fulltext": "Chaos and Cosmos\\nessentially evil in nature. There is something\\nessentially evil, stubborn, and resisting in our-\\nselves, which we are very apt to associate with\\nthe flesh; that is to say, with the animal, carnal\\nelement in us that we take from Nature. Look\\nat Creation for a moment, and think how slowly\\nit has gone forward, how long it has taken the\\nhigher forms of life to come into existence.\\nIt is as if God had encountered immense difficul-\\nties in shaping a stubborn, intractable material\\nand in compelling it at last to do His will. Think\\nof the monsters of the old world whose huge\\nbones enable us to reconstruct their strange,\\ngigantic forms^ or which we occasionally find\\nembedded in the ice intact. What rational pur-\\npose could they have served? Can we wonder\\nthat the Psalmist of old believed God had made\\nthem merely to amuse Himself? There go\\nthe ships and there is that Leviathan whom\\nThou hast made [as a toy] to play with. Or\\nlook at the evil that is in every child of man,\\nand seems an essential part of human nature,\\nagainst which we must struggle our whole lives\\nlong, and which is ever resisting and ever com-\\npelling us to do what in our better nature we have\\nno wish to do. It certainly seems to have some-\\nthing of the old chaos and darkness about it. It\\nis always trying to quench the light of God, the\\nlight of conscience, the light of reason in us, to\\ndestroy the plan of our life and reduce us to the\\ncondition of chaos and darkness in which law\\nsame. We find it in the story of Jahveh and Rahab, of Marduk and\\nTiamat, in the battle of Phoebus with the Pythian monster, in\\nIndra s conflict with the serpent Vritra, in Sigurd and the Dragon,\\nin CEdipus and the Sphinx, etc.\\n(141)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0179.jp2"}, "180": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nand order are unknown and all the elements of\\nthe soul are mingled m purposeless conflict and\\ntumult.\\nAnd yet, strange to say, this resistance is the\\nvery condition of our moral life and progress.\\nThe light dove, winging her way across the\\nheaven, thinks if it were not for the heavy imped-\\ning atmosphere she would rise higher and fly\\nmore swiftly. But it is only the resistance of the\\nair to the stroke of her wing that enables her to\\nrise at all. In a vacuum she would collapse into\\na handful of feathers. So it is only by resisting\\nthe instincts of our lower nature that we become\\ngood. If goodness were as easy and natural as\\nbreathing or as obeying the law of gravitation,\\nthere would be no merit in it. We take no credit\\nto ourselves because our heart is always beating,\\nor because we do not fly away to the moon. But\\nit is just because goodness is so hard to attain,\\nbecause we never do a good action without hav-\\ning the opportunity to do a bad one, that the\\nworld bows down to its good men. In them we\\nfeel that God has won a victory of whose fruits\\nwe all partake.\\nWhat the nature of this resisting chaos is, we\\ndo not know. Neither the Babylonian legend\\nnor the Book of Genesis can tell us. The Baby-\\nlonian legend simply assumes Tiamat as existing\\nfrom the beginning. Out of her come the gods\\nwho eventually destroy her. The Book of Gen-\\nesis, though more guarded in its language, does\\nnot say that God created chaos, probably for this\\nreason. All that God made is good. Chaos is\\nevil. Even the firmament which was made out\\nof Tiamat, according to the Babylonian account.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0180.jp2"}, "181": {"fulltext": "The Sabbath Day\\nGod carefully refrains from calling good. In\\nIsaiah, Job, and the Psalms, the existence of the\\nmythical chaos-monster is assumed, but it is\\nnowhere said that God created him.\\nFinally, let us consider the idea of the Sabbath\\nday in this chapter. It is introduced with much\\nart. The author places the observance of the\\nSabbath long before Moses, at the creation of\\nthe world itself, or, rather, he gives here the\\nreason why the Sabbath day was afterward kept.\\nThe sanction of the Sabbath day is the rest of\\nGod after Creation. To us, that is a mere rever-\\nsal of the facts of the case. The introduction of\\nthe Sabbath is the objective point of the whole\\naccount of Creation. It was his wish to intro-\\nduce the seventh day into his story that led our\\nauthor to choose six days for the work of Crea-\\ntion, in a manner that would be altogether\\nmeaningless and arbitrary were it not for the\\nnecessity of ending with the seventh day, the day\\nof rest. To do this he is obliged on two occa-\\nsions to crowd two acts of creation into one day\\nthe separation of land and water and the crea-\\ntion of vegetation on the third day, and the\\ncreation of land animals and of man on the sixth\\nday.\\nAnd yet, as we shall see, our author had a\\nreason for placing the hallowing of the Sabbath\\nday long before Moses, and even long before the\\nbeginning of Hebrew history. What is that rea-\\nson Or we might as well ask. What is the origin\\nof the Sabbath day, one of the greatest blessings\\nthat religion has ever bestowed upon man? If\\nMoses did not originate that observance, how old\\nis it, and where did it originate? We do not find\\n(143)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0181.jp2"}, "182": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nany trace of it among the Greeks or Egyplians,\\nwhose week consisted of ten days.* The Arabs\\nundoubtedly learned to observe the Sabbath\\nfrom the Jews. So only Babylonia is left, and\\nthere we find just what we are looking for. In\\nthe sacred calendar of Babylon for the inter-\\ncalated months Elul^ which was discovered by\\nRawlinson, and is preserved in the British Mu-\\nseum, we read that the seventh, the fourteenth,\\nthe twenty-first, and the twenty-eighth days of\\nthe lunar month were called Udu Khulgal, an\\nunlawful day. We read also in this calendar the\\ndirections for the observance of that day\\nThe seventh day is a resting day to Merodach [Mar-\\nduk] and Zarpanit [his consort]. The Shepherd of mighty\\nnations [this possibly takes us back to the earhest Accadian\\ntimes, when kings remembered that their predecessors had\\nFerdinand Baur s assertion Der Hebraische Sabbat, etc.,\\nTiibinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1832, pp. 123-igi) that the\\nHebrew Sabbath was originally associated with the worship of\\nSaturn, and hence with the Roman Saturnalia, is justified only\\nto this extent. The Romans, who originally had a week of eight\\ndays, later adopted the Babylonian week of seven days. From\\nBabylon they learned to call the days of the week after the heav-\\nenly bodies. The order is as follows: i. Sunday Shamash\\n(Sun-god). 2. Monday Sin (Moon-god). 3. Tuesday\\nNergal (Mars). 4. Wednesday Nebo (Mercury). 5. Thurs-\\nday Merodach (Jupiter). 6. Friday Ishtar (Venus). 7. Sat-\\nurday Adar (Saturn). This order, however, is not invariable\\nin the cuneiform lists. From the Romans the names of the days\\nof the week passed to the whole civilized world. That the\\nHebrew Sabbath had any closer connection with the Roman\\nSaturnalia, a feast which occurred only once a year, is prepos-\\nterous. It is true, late Roman writers (e. g,, Tacitus, Hist. v. 4)\\nassociate the Saturnalia with the Jewish Sabbath, but this re-\\nsemblance as far as it existed is to be explained by their common\\nBabylonian origin. The Italian festival is very old. The week\\nof seven days, however, did not come to the Romans much before\\nthe Christian Era, nor did the Hebrews ever name their week\\ndays after the planets, but described them as the first, second, etc.,\\nday after the Sabbath.\\n(144)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0182.jp2"}, "183": {"fulltext": "Babylonian Sabbath\\nbeen only shepherd chiefs] must not eat flesh cooked at\\nthe fire or in the smoke. His clothes he changes not. A\\nwashing he must not make. He must not offer sacrifice.\\nThe king must not drive in his chariot. He must not issue\\nroyal decrees. In secret places the augur a muttering\\nmakes not. Medicine for the sickness of the body one\\nmust not apply. For making a curse it is not fit. In the\\nnight the king makes his free will offering to Merodach\\nand Istar. Sacrifice he slays. The lifting of his hand finds\\nfavor with his god.*\\nThis is of incomparable interest, not only be-\\ncause it proves the existence of the Sabbath long\\nbefore the age of Abraham, but also because we\\nfind here those minute prescriptions in regard to\\ncooking food, changing one s clothes, and travel-\\nling on the Sabbath, for which we have been in\\nthe habit of criticizing the late Jewish doctors,\\nbut which, apparently, came down to them from\\nthe most remote antiquity. Perhaps in the his-\\ntory of the world we could hardly find an equal\\nexample of the vitality of a religious tradition.\\nI remember that as a child I was allowed to take\\nwalks on Sunday, but not to drive in a carriage.\\nLittle did I suspect that this was because it was\\nengraved on the old Babylonian tablet He shall\\nnot drive in a chariot. Medicine for the sick-\\nness of the body he shall not apply. The viola-\\ntion of this latter injunction was one of the\\ncharges brought against Jesus, and well did He\\nsay, Ye make the commands of God of no effect\\nthrough your traditions.\\nLet us look a Httle more closely at the Babylo-\\nnian conception of the Sabbath presented on this\\ntablet. We notice that all injunctions in regard\\nto the keeping of this day are addressed solely to\\nBoscawen s translation.\\n(145)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0183.jp2"}, "184": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthe king. His acts alone are supposed to suffice\\nto make the day auspicious. So far, at all events,\\nthe Babylonian Sabbath can hardly be called a\\npopular institution. In the next place this tab-\\nlet, far from regarding the Sabbath as a day of\\nreligious Observance, expressly states that no\\nsacrifice may be offered on this day before even-\\ning, nor are the oracles to be consulted. The\\nconception of the Sabbath is rather that it is an\\nevil and an inauspicious day {dies ater^ as the\\nRomans called it). The two saHent features of\\nthe Hebrew Sabbath its specifically religious\\nnature as a day sacred to Jahveh, and its joyous\\ncharacter as a popular religious festival are\\nwholly absent in this description. Like the He-\\nbrews, the Babylonians seem to have reckoned\\ntheir Sabbath first as a day of the month, deter-\\nmined by the phases of the moon, later as a day\\nof the week. Much more important is the ques-\\ntion whether it was from Babylonia that the\\nHebrews derived their wise custom of resting\\none day in seven from every form of manual la-\\nbor. The names which the Babylonians applied\\nto their seventh day Sabattuv, day of rest\\nSabattuv Hm nuh libbi, day of rest of the heart\\nrenders this supposition probable. Ihering,\\non the strength of this name, considering also the\\nvast number of slaves employed in Babylonia on\\npublic works, to whom a day of rest would be\\nnecessary, and remembering that the Hebrew\\nSabbath was originally a day of rest rather than\\nof reHgious observance, believes that the incom-\\nparable blessing of one day of rest in seven was\\ngained for mankind by the needs of the laborer\\nrather than by religion or the fancies of astrolo-\\nV", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0184.jp2"}, "185": {"fulltext": "Hebrew Sabbath\\ngers.* The Hebrews evidently derived their Sab-\\nbath as a division of time, along with the week,\\nfrom Babylonia. From the same country they\\nmay have learned to regard the Sabbath as a day\\nof rest. But the peculiar religious and social sig-\\nnificance which this day acquired among the\\nHebrews, we should look for in vain among any\\nother nation.\\nThis tablet corroborates the general position\\ntaken throughout our discussion. The Israel-\\nites certainly did not borrow their Sabbath from\\nthe Babylonians at the time of the Exile, f It\\nis part of the common heritage, one of the old\\nfamily traditions they held in common. But it\\nis due to Israel and not to Babylon that this old\\nSabbath, this Rest of the Heart, has become\\nthe day of rest and gladness, a blessing to\\nthe whole world.\\nIhering s argument seems to me strengthened by the fact\\nthat no work was performed by slaves during the Roman Satur-\\nnalia. Cf. note on page 144.\\nf This one fact ought to caution critics against insisting on too\\nlate a date for the introduction into Israel of other Babylonian\\ncustoms and traditions.\\n(147)", "height": "3809", "width": "2275", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0185.jp2"}, "186": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Eight:\\nAdam and Eve\\nWE pass now from the first account of Cre-\\nation to the second, from the Priestly\\nWriter to the Jehovist. The Jehovist s account\\nbegins in the middle of the fourth verse of the\\nsecond chapter. It describes the creation of the\\nworld, though in a brief and fragmentary way,\\nuntil it reaches the creation of man. Then the\\nnarrative expands and becomes picturesque and\\nstriking. Mankind is ushered on to the stage of\\nthe world, not in a mere abstract phrase, as in the\\nfirst account male and female created he\\nthem but as a particular man and a particular\\nwoman, his wife. The characters of this man and\\nwoman are drawn, their motives and feelings are\\ntaken into account. That is the reason why\\nAdam and Eve have been seriously accepted as\\nour first parents by so large a part of the world.\\nThey are living beings like ourselves. Their im-\\npulses, their desires are human. That is why we\\ncan claim kinship with them. And all this is due\\nto the literary art and the deep religious feeling\\nof a very great writer whom we have already\\ncalled the Jehovist. As soon as man appears his\\nmoral life begins. His physical environment\\nalso is taken into account. It is happy, delicious,\\npure, innocent, and altogether lovely. The\\n(148)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0186.jp2"}, "187": {"fulltext": "Jehovist s Story of Creation\\nJehovist has evoked for us that dream of the\\nspringtide of earth to which the whole world\\nhas turned with delight, when all was fresh, new,\\nunused, when sin did not exist, but man, a\\npure being, dwelt with his virgin wife in a\\ngarden of God s own planting, enjoying God s\\npresence and favor, surrounded by peaceable and\\nfriendly animals. At last sin entered in, or at\\nleast disobedience and discontent, and man was\\ndriven out of the garden of Eden to begin his in-\\nfinite labor with the world and with himself.\\nIt is not necessary, after what has been said, to\\nshow at length that this is indeed another author,\\nand an entirely independent account. Everything\\npoints to this conclusion. The dry, majestic style\\nof the first chapter, which ignores particulars,\\ninstantly becomes graphic, minute, and familiar.\\nGod fashions man and animals out of clay. He\\nbreathes into the man s nostrils His living breath,\\ntakes a rib or a side out of Adam and closes up\\nthe cavity; He brings Eve to him all very\\nmuch more naif. The name for God is changed.\\nInstead of Elohim, in these two chapters we have\\nJahveh Elohim, then afterward merely Jahveh.\\nI may say, in passing, that this expression, Jahveh\\nElohim, is a very unusual one, not used else-\\nwhere in the Pentateuch. The reason for the\\ntransition appears to be this: If the Book of\\nGenesis passed abruptly from one name of God\\nto another without a word of explanation, it\\nwould have given rise to a good deal of scandal.\\nPeople would have supposed two deities had been\\nat work, one described in the first chapter, named\\nElohim, and another in the second chapter,\\nExcept Ex. ix. 30.\\n(149)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0187.jp2"}, "188": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nnamed Jahveh. These two names must be\\nbrought into some connection, otherwise every\\nreader would stumble.* Accordingly, in these\\ntwo chapters (the second and third) the two\\nnames are brought into the closest connection\\nby being written together. Then, after it has\\nbeen plainly shown that Jahveh and Elohim are\\nthe same being, the Elohist writers are allowed\\nto go on speaking in the name of Elohim,\\nand the Jehovist writer in the name of Jahveh.\\nThis is the work of the Redactor, or Editor,\\nwho united the different documents of the\\nPentateuch and gave them some semblance of\\nunity.\\nBefore we say anything more about this\\nsecond account of Creation, let us have it as\\nnearly as possible in the writer s words.\\nChapter ii., v. 4^: On the day when Jahveh Elohim made\\nthe earth and the heavens. t\\n5, 6, 7. Not a shrub of the field was yet upon the earth,\\nnot a herb of the field had yet sprouted, because Jahveh\\nElohim had not yet caused it to rain upon the earth,\\nand there was not a man to cultivate the ground: but a\\nthick cloud rose up from the earth and watered all the\\nsurface of the ground. And Jahveh Elohim formed man\\nof the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils\\n[literally, blew into his nose] the breath of life, and so\\nman became a living soul.^:\\nDillmann.\\nf An unusual order, which shows that the author s interest is\\ncentred on the earth in fact, he says nothing further of the\\nheavens at all, and yet his account originally must have described\\nthe creation of heavenly bodies, which was omitted here either\\nbecause it had just been said before, or because, it contradicted\\nwhat was said before,\\nX This may have been suggested by the fact that the Hebrew\\nword for man is Adam, and the word for ground is Adama,\\nso man would naturally be thought of as coming from the ground,\\nbelonging to the soil, very much Hke the Latin homo, humus.\\nUnfortunately this tempting derivation cannot be accepted\\n05^)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0188.jp2"}, "189": {"fulltext": "Site of the Garden of Kden\\n8. And Jahveh Elohim planted a garden in the East, in\\nthe land of Loveliness [or, in Eden].* And he placed there\\nthe man he had formed.\\n9. And Jahveh Elohim made to shoot from the ground\\nevery tree pleasant to the eye and good to eat; f and the\\nTree of Life in the middle of the garden and also the Tree\\nof the Knowledge of good and evil.t\\n10. II, 12. A river came out of Eden to water the garden,\\nand from that point it divided to form four branches. The\\nname of one [branch] is Pison; it is thr.t which encircles\\nall the land of Havilah where the gold is found. And the\\ngold of that land is good; there is found also the bedolach\\nand the shoham stone.\u00c2\u00a7\\n13, 14. And the name of the second river is Gihon; it is\\nthat which circles all the land of Cush. And the name of\\nthe third river is Hiddekel: it is that which flows before\\nAssh^ir. And the fourth river is the Phrath.\\nr shall say but a word in regard to the situation\\nof Paradise or Eden. Men have been trying to\\nfind it for thousands of years and have looked\\nfor it everywhere, from an island in the Persian\\nGulf to the North Pole; but they are not able\\nto make it stay where they put it, since new\\n(Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann), and no satisfactory etymology for\\nAdam has yet been found.\\nThe word Eden means comfort, delight, bliss. The He-\\nbrews knew several places called Eden, but there is nothing\\nwhatever to connect them with this garden. By placing Paradise\\nin the East, the author gives a hint that the myth itself came\\nfrom the East.\\nf Only trees are mentioned, not herbs nor vegetables. Man is\\nconceived at this time as living on fruits and nuts. Our teeth\\ntell the same story they were made for fruits and nuts, not to\\ntear flesh.\\nI These are miraculous, divine trees, such as grow only on\\nthe soil of faith. They help to show that this is a supernatural\\ngarden, a wonderful garden of God.\\nBedolach is supposed to be a gum Hke amber. The shoham\\nstone has been identified with the beryl, the emerald, and the\\nonyx. This verse interrupts the sense and seems to have been\\ninterpolated.\\nI Paradise Found The Cradle of the Human Race at the\\nNorth Pole. William F. Warner. Houghton, Mifflin Co.,\\n1886, 8th ed.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0189.jp2"}, "190": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nscholars are constantly contending for new lo-\\ncations. What is the reason that Eden is so\\nhard to locate? It seems to be described with\\nmuch precision. The trouble is, it is like the\\ncountry on which the end of the rainbow rests\\nit recedes as we advance. It would appear\\neither that our author wrote without the least\\nknowledge of foreign geography or that he did\\nnot wish to identify this Garden of God with\\nany known country; or, as seems to me most\\nprobable, that he was influenced by several con-\\nflicting traditions. Where should we find a spot\\nfrom which one vast river branches into four\\nchannels that encircle whole lands? Two of\\nthese rivers are perfectly well known. They are\\nthe Tigris and Euphrates (Hiddekel and Phrat),\\nwhich rise in the mountains of Kurdistan, and\\nnow unite perhaps a hundred miles above the\\nPersian Gulf. Between them lie the plain of\\nAssyria to the north and Babylonia to the south.\\nWhen our author speaks of the Hiddekel or Tig-\\nris flowing before Asshur, he is perfectly correct,\\nonly it is the old city of Asshur on the west bank\\nof the Tigris below Nineveh that he has in mind.\\nThe Phrat, or Euphrates, he does not identify,\\nbecause it was too well known to need identifica-\\ntion. The Gihon and the Pison, which he also\\ndescribes as large streams encircling whole lands,\\nhave never been absolutely identified. Nor has\\nHavilah, through which the Pison flows; but\\nfrom the way in which he speaks of Havilah as\\nthe country whence come fine gold and precious\\nstones, one would think either of India or of\\nArabia. As Arabia possesses no large river, on\\nthe whole we should identify the Pison with the", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0190.jp2"}, "191": {"fulltext": "The Four Rivers of Eden\\nIndus or the Ganges, preferably with the Indus\\nand this view is somewhat strengthened by the\\nfact that in the order named in Genesis the\\nPison is the easternmost river. That the old\\nHebrews themselves had no clear idea where\\nHavilah was, is shown by the fact that in the same\\nchapter of Genesis (the tenth) Havilah is called a\\ndescendant of Japhet and a descendant of Shem.\\nSimilarly, when our author speaks of the Gihon\\nflowing around the land of Gush, we should\\nnaturally think of the African Gush, and hence\\nthe Gihon would be the Nile.\\nThe conception of our author appears to be\\nsomething like this. The garden of Eden, the\\nfirst centre of life and vegetation and beauty, is\\nthe source from which all the life-giving rivers\\nflow. To our author, the four great rivers of the\\nworld are the Tigris and Euphrates, which he\\nknows very well, the Nile, and perhaps the\\nIndus, of which he has heard, but of whose\\ncourses he has only the vaguest idea. So he\\nconceives of one great stream issuing from Eden,\\nwhose waters divide and form the four chief riv-\\ners of the world. I do not insist on identifying\\nthe Pison with the Indus, but of the other three\\nrivers we are practically certain.*\\nNow let us go on\\n15, 16, 17. Jahveh Elohim took the man and placed him\\nIn the garden of Eden to cuhivate it and to keep it. And\\nJahveh Elohim- commanded the man, saying, Of every\\ntree in the garden thou mayest eat, but of the Tree of the\\nI have not felt it necessary to reproduce Friedrich Delitzsch s\\narguments as to the site of Eden. Interesting as they are, they\\nseem to me inconclusive. His book, however, is a very valuable\\none. Its well-known title is Wo lag das Paradies? (Leipzig,\\n1881).\\n(153)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0191.jp2"}, "192": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nKnowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat, for on the\\nday that thou shalt eat of it thou shalt die of death [liter-\\nally, dying, thou shalt die].\\ni8. And Jahveh Elohim said, It is not good that the\\nman should be alone: I will make him a help like himself.\\n19. And Jahveh Elohim formed out of the earth all the\\nanimals of the field and all the fowls of the air, and He led\\nthem to the man to see how he would name them, and\\naccording as the man named a living creature, that was to\\nbe its name.\\n20. And the man called by name all cattle, all fowl of\\nthe air, and all wild beasts of the field, but for man found\\nHe among them no help like to him.\\n21. And Jahveh Elohim made a deep sleep to fall upon\\nthe man, and he slept. He took one of his ribs [or one of\\nhis sides], and He closed up the place with fiesh.\\n22. And Jahveh Elohim built up the rib [side] He had\\ntaken from the man into a woman, and He led her to the\\nman.\\n23. And the man said, This is this time [now, at last]\\nbone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. This shall be called\\nwoman [isshah], because she was taken out of man [ish].\\n24. This is why the man shall leave his father and his\\nmother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be only\\none flesh.\\n25. And both of them, the man and the woman, were\\nnaked and they were not ashamed.\\nThis is the first of these two wonderful chap-\\nters. It is a chapter full of interest, but at the\\nsame time it abounds in difihculties, and, unfor-\\ntunately, there is no simple thread we can seize\\non here to guide us through the labyrinth. The\\nchief difficulty is this The first chapter of Gen-\\nesis, in spite of its sublimity and grand sense\\nof proportion, was written by a man of great\\nsimplicity of thought and of style. He took as\\nhis sources the old traditions shared by the He-\\nbrews, Babylonians, and Egyptians, and, trans-\\nforming them only so much as his religion re-\\nquired, he gave them to us in a form in which we\\ncould partially unravel them. He was in all re-\\n054)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0192.jp2"}, "193": {"fulltext": "The Jehovist s Sources\\nspects an objective writer, with whom the per-\\nsonal equation counted for little. But this splen-\\ndid Jehovist, as every verse proves, is an accom-\\nplished artist. He has his sources, of course,\\nand, as we shall see, he seeks them far and near;\\nbut with him the old material is so profoundly\\ntransformed to serve his ideal purposes, that its\\noriginal form is obscured, and it is often hard to\\nsay where he obtained his original facts or what\\ntheir first form was. It would appear, too, that\\nhe was a man of greater culture than the Priestly\\nWriter and gathered his honey from many flow-\\ners. The difference between the two writers is\\nalmost as great as between Shakespeare and Bal-\\nzac or Thackeray. The plot of one of Shake-\\nspeare s plays is almost always easy to assign to\\nits historical source. But who, without a most\\nminute knowledge of his life, can tell us where\\nThackeray got the material he put into Vanity\\nFair, or what suggested Pere Goriot to Balzac?\\nFortunately, our task is not so difficult. In such\\na study there is a great temptation to see fancied\\nresemblances where real ones are lacking. That\\nseems to me just as grave an error as the old\\ndogmatic method which interprets every verse\\nof Genesis as if it fell from the skies. There\\nis, however, no way of dissipating the cloud of\\ndifficulties that surround us, except by meeting\\nand overcoming them one by one, or, when they\\nare too strong for us, acknowledging ourselves\\nbeaten. Part of the comparison I am about to\\nmake will include the third chapter of Genesis,\\nthe description of the Temptation and the Fall,\\nbut we are so familiar with the story that we shall\\nhave no difficulty in following it.\\n(155)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0193.jp2"}, "194": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nI have mentioned several times the decided dif-\\nferences and contradictions between these two\\naccounts of Creation in regard to the order in\\nwhich the various parts of Nature came into\\nbeing. It is not necessary to go over all that\\nagain, but there is one physical contradiction\\nwhich is very important, and which, if followed\\nup, will yet throw much light on the origin of this\\nsecond narrative. In the first account, as we\\nhave seen, the world is conceived as rising out of\\nthe water. In fact, at first it is covered by water,\\nwater surrounds and drowns it, and only after\\nthe waters, which are conceived as everywhere,\\nabove as well as below, are separated by the firm-\\nament, can the earth appear at all. Water, of\\nwhich there is too much, is conceived as a hostile\\nelement it is personified by monsters like Tiamat\\nand Rahab and Leviathan, which must be killed\\nand put down before the world can be created.\\nIn short, it is the conception of a maritime peo-\\nple, or, more probably, of a people dwelling be-\\nside some great river whose freshets constantly\\nmenaced their lives and property, and whose\\nwaters they must draw off into other channels, as\\nMarduk is described as drawing off the sea.\\nIn the second account, however, we find the\\nvery reverse of all this. Everything here speaks\\nof the scarcity of water. Water is regarded as\\na friendly element. Not a shrub of the field\\nwas yet upon the earth, not a herb of the field\\nhad sprouted, because Jahveh Eloliim had not\\ncaused it to rain upon the earth. The phenom-\\nenon of rain and moisture is accounted for in an\\nentirely different way. Our author says nothing\\nabout the firmament that holds the heavenly\\n(156)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0194.jp2"}, "195": {"fulltext": "Water a Friendly Element\\nwaters. He accounts for rain (at least, it is hard\\nnot to believe that he has rain in mind) in a most\\nrational manner. But a thick mist rose up from\\nthe earth and watered all the surface of the\\nground. That seems to describe the formation\\nof an atmosphere quite in the spirit of modern\\ngeology. He carries his point of view so far\\nthat he does not mention*the creation of fish or\\nwater animals at all. Paradise (the Garden of\\nEden) is a kind of oasis in the desert, from which\\nflow the four great rivers that give life to the\\nchief nations of the earth. Outside of Paradise\\nthe earth produces nothing but thorns and\\nthistles. It is hard to cultivate and difficult to\\nwrest food from. In short, the birthplace of\\nthis tradition was not Babylonia, overflowed\\nyearly by two great rivers, where the water was\\nan enemy rather than a friend and the soil so\\nfertile that one had hardly to scratch it to re-\\nceive a crop, where alone in the world wheat\\ngrows wild; but the birthplace of this tradition\\nmust be looked for in a very different locality, in\\nan inland country and probably in a desert like\\nArabia, or in a country surrounded by deserts.\\nI do not think scholars have weighed this fact\\nsufficiently. All the Hght that Babylon as yet\\ncan throw on this second chapter has been\\neagerly welcomed, and it does explain something.\\nBut Babylonian tradition here is of far less as-\\nsistance than in the first chapter, and there are\\nmany features of this second account which every\\nscholar feels never originated on Jewish soil, and\\nfor which Babylonian lore fails to account. Their\\nsource must be looked for elsewhere. If we only\\nknew where!\\n057)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0195.jp2"}, "196": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nPassing on now to the moral and spiritual dif-\\nferences of the two accounts, we find them nearly\\nas striking. In the first account, the distinctions\\nbetween God and Nature, between God and man,\\nbetween Nature and man and between man and\\nthe animals are drawn with wonderful clearness\\nand precision. Elohim is in heaven. He creates\\nby His word. Not so here. Jahveh is on earth.\\nHe creates animals and men out of clay with His\\nhands, like a maker of images. Although we are\\nnot told that Jahveh Elohim spent all His time in\\nParadise, yet He is evidently there a good deal.\\nPolytheism, of which in the first account one may\\nsay there is hardly a trace, shows unmistakably\\nhere. When Jahveh says The man is become\\nas one of us, knowing good and evil, it is evident\\nthat He is not alone Hke the solitary Elohim.\\nThen the whole conception of Nature is differ-\\nent. I called your attention to the fact that the\\nworld described in the first chapter of Genesis\\nis just the plain, prosaic Nature we know to-day;\\nnot so in the second chapter. The garden of the\\nEast, in the land of loveliness, is a magic gar-\\nden and sometimes, in the cool shadows of the\\nevening, when Jahveh was heard moving among\\nthe trees, it must have been awful. Strange trees\\ngrow in it. Imagine a tree capable of bestowing\\nknowledge, and a tree capable of bestowing eter-\\nnal life. The last picture of vast genii or cherubs,\\nhalf brute, half angel, and the flaming blade of a\\nsword which of itself turned every way to keep\\nthe way of the tree of life, is weird in the ex-\\ntreme.\\nThe conception of the animals is very peculiar.\\nNot only is the talking, tempting serpent, who", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0196.jp2"}, "197": {"fulltext": "Creation of Woman\\nknows so much about the secrets of God and\\nwhose power of speech causes the woman no sur-\\nprise, entirely unHke anything else in the Bible\\nbut the whole animal creation and man s relation\\nto it are conceived in a half mythical manner. In\\nthe first chapter, animals are created before man,\\nand are simply in a general way placed in sub-\\njection to him. In the second chapter, man is\\ncreated long before the animals, and they are\\nbrought to him one by one not only to receive\\ntheir names, but plainly for the purpose of ascer-\\ntaining whether among them one might not be\\nfound to serve as a companion to man. And\\nJahveh Elohim said, It is not good that the man\\nbe alone: I will make him a help like himself.\\nAnd Jahveh Elohim formed out of the earth all\\nthe animals of the field and He led them to the\\nman to see how he would name them\\nbut for man found He among them no help like\\nto him.\\nAccordingly, the account passes on to the cre-\\nation of woman. Whereas, in the first account,\\nman and woman, male and female, were created\\nat the same time by God without any account\\nbeing taken of their peculiar relation to each\\nother, our author here describes in the strangest\\nmanner how woman was separated from the very\\nsubstance of man, taken, in short, out of his side\\nwhile he slept. That story has for time out of\\nmind been ridiculed as grotesque, but those who\\nridicule it little know what they are laughing at.\\nI remember once hearing Dr. McConnell say\\nthat at the bottom of the universe lies the distinc-\\ntion of sex. It is this problem, the key to life,\\nthe key to man s spiritual nature and all his\\n(159)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0197.jp2"}, "198": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmoral and immoral actions, that our author is\\ngrappling with here under the disguise of this\\nstrange myth. If only we knew certainly what\\nhe washes to imply Following our Authorized\\nVersion, we are in the habit of saying that Eve\\nwas made of one of Adam s ribs. But, as Le-\\nnormant says, the word qeld elsewhere usually\\nmeans side, and not rib. Jewish tradition\\nin the Talmud, as well as among philosophers\\nlike Moses Maimonides, asserts that Adam\\nwas first created man and woman, with two faces\\nturned in opposite directions, and that, during a\\nstupor, the Creator separated his feminine half\\nfrom him in order to make her a distinct per-\\nson. This conception is also found in Hindu\\nmythology. Plato introduces the same idea in\\nthe Symposium and gives a wonderful descrip-\\ntion of the androgyn, who could walk upright\\nwhen it pleased, or else spread its eight limbs and\\nroll like a wheel. He explains the attraction of\\nlove by the desire of these two sundered halves to\\nreturn to their original unity. It is certainly\\nsingular that our Saviour should have selected\\nthis passage in Genesis to prove the indissoluble\\nnature of the marriage bond. Wherefore they\\nare no more twain [i. e., two beings], but one\\nflesh.\\nLeaving this aside, however, it is a profound\\nsense of woman s relation to man that led our\\nauthor to describe her as taken out of his very\\nside, and then as weaning him at once from the\\nbrute creation and satisfying him with her sole\\nsociety.* In every respect the conception is pure\\nRabbi Joshua of Laknin said The Lord considered from\\nwhat part of the man he should form woman. Not from the\\n(i6o)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0198.jp2"}, "199": {"fulltext": "Man and Woman\\nand satisfying. If we take the first view, that\\nAdam was first both man and woman, it means\\nthat humanity is neither male nor female, but\\nboth. There is in every great man something of\\nthe womanly, that is, something of the intuitive,\\nthe mysterious, the creative, something of faith\\nand love; and there are some manly qualities in\\nevery perfect woman. Balzac, in his most in-\\nspired work, grapples with this mystery when he\\nmakes Seraphita both male and female that is,\\nshe impresses men as a woman and women as a\\nman. Until man recognizes woman for what she\\nis and learns from her the lesson of spirituality\\nwhich she alone can teach him, he remains on\\nthe plane of the animal. This is wonderfully\\nshown in the chapter of Genesis that we are dis-\\ncussing. Adam s temptation came through Eve,\\nit is true, but without her he would not have been\\nAdam. For the rest, their union is not yet mar-\\nriage, only pure companionship. She is not his\\nslave, his chattel, nor one of many. She and he\\nwere made for each other exclusively. She is\\nhis only one, his fitting helpmeet.\\nThere is only one other point of comparison I\\nwish to draw between these two chapters. In the\\nfirst chapter, after men and women were created,\\ndominion over the entire world was given them\\nas the free and glad gift of God. Be fruitful and\\nmultiply; fill the earth and subdue it, was God s\\nhead, lest she should be proud not from the eyes, lest she should\\nwish to see everything- not from the mouth, lest she might be\\ntalkative nor from the ear, lest she should wish to hear every-\\nthing nor from the heart, lest she should be jealous nor from\\nthe hand, lest she should wish to find out everything nor from\\nthe feet, in order that she might not be a wanderer. Only from\\nthe most hidden place that is always covered namely, the rib.\\n(i6i)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0199.jp2"}, "200": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ncommand to them. This impHes the multiplica-\\ntion of the human race and man s ascendancy over\\nNature by knowledge and civilization. In the\\nsecond chapter, however, not only is the repro-\\nduction of the human race unthought of in Par-\\nadise, but man s domination of Nature is pro-\\nhibited by God s forbidding him to eat of the\\nTree of Knowledge. When man goes forth to\\nhis manifest destiny to wrestle with the world\\nand to overcome it, he is not accompanied with\\nGod s blessing, but, as a result of sin, is thrust\\nout of Paradise into a sad and accursed world,\\nfrom which all he hopes is to eat bread by the\\nsweat of his brow until he dies. The very pro-\\ncreation of children, everywhere else in the Bible\\nregarded as the highest mark of God s favor\\nand blessing, is here, one might almost say,\\npart of the curse. I will greatly multiply thy\\nsorrow and thy conception. In sorrow shalt thou\\nbear children, and thy desire shall be to thy hus-\\nband, and he shall rule over thee. In the first\\nchapter man is made in the very image of God.\\nBut in the second account, to become like God,\\nknowing good and evil, is a sin, and, lest man\\nshould become more like God by gaining immor-\\ntality through eating of the Tree of Life, he is\\ndriven out of the garden altogether.\\nAll this is sad and even pessimistic, but we\\nshould remember that the purpose of these chap-\\nters is a sad purpose. They were written to ac-\\ncount for the origin of human sin and their won-\\nderful power is proved by their wonderful suc-\\ncess. If theauthor considers even the procreation\\nof children as part of the curse, it is because he\\nknows that those children will inherit a corrupt", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0200.jp2"}, "201": {"fulltext": "Poetry, not History\\nnature and will lead a sad and sinful life. If we\\nregard these chapters as Hterally historical, there\\nis much in them that naturally revolts us, but all\\nthis disappears when we recognize their real pur-\\npose, and it is a proof of their incomparable vigor\\nand their fidelity to life that they have passed as\\nactual history for so long. That they are pure\\npoetry, however, we may infer from the fact that\\nthey inspired Paradise Lost.\\nWe have now, I hope, at least broken the ice.\\nWhat remains is to translate the third chapter\\nand explain what we can, and then to attempt to\\nanchor these wonderful conceptions of Paradise\\nthe Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life,\\nthe speaking, tempting Serpent, the Cherubim\\nand the revolving Sword by assigning them\\ntheir place in the great world of human tradition.\\nUnfortunately, it will be many years before that\\ntask can be completely performed. And yet I\\nbeHeve that the key to these strange conceptions\\nlies buried under the ruins of some old civiliza-\\ntion, if not in Babylon or Nineveh, in Egypt or\\nDamascus, or still farther toward the East. Im-\\nages and stories like these are never the result\\nof conscious reflection. They are the product\\nof many minds, and they belong to the period\\nwhen language and religions are still in their\\nplastic, creative condition.\\n(163)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0201.jp2"}, "202": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Nine:\\nThe Garden and the Fall\\nTHE second and third chapters of Genesis\\nare so closely connected that they may be\\nsaid to form one story by themselves, a story\\nwhich has had more eifect on the thought of the\\nworld than any other part of the Old Testament.\\nThis fact alone justifies us in treating it with the\\nutmost seriousness. The cause must be at least\\nas great as its effect. You remember how the\\nsecond chapter ends. Adam and Eve are placed\\nin the Garden in the Land of Loveliness (where\\nthat is no one knows). There they lead a pure,\\nidyllic life in intimate association with God.\\nHow long this life continued before the Fall we\\nare not told. The Book of the Jubilee says, for\\nseven years. Let us now try to put all our old\\npreconceptions about this chapter to one side and\\napproach it as if we had never read it before and\\nwere deeply anxious to know what it wishes to\\nteach us.\\nChap. iii. i. Now the Serpent was more crafty than any\\nbeast of the field which Jahveh Elohim had made.\\nIn attempting to account for the sources of\\nthis chapter I shall have something to say in\\nregard to the part played by the serpent as a sym-\\nbol of temptation and evil in the mythology of\\nthe nations. Here I will only mention the pecu-\\n(164)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0202.jp2"}, "203": {"fulltext": "Serpent not the Devil\\nliar characteristics of this particular serpent. It\\nwill be necessary for us at once to dismiss from\\nour minds the old, familiar notion that this ser-\\npent is the Devil or Satan, i.e., a spiritual being\\nconsciously devoted to evil, or a fallen angel. No-\\nwhere in this chapter does the suggestion of such\\na thing occur, and, to be quite candid, the He-\\nbrew people had no such conception of the Devil\\nor Satan before the Exile. Every allusion to\\nSatan in the Old Testament is later than the Ex-\\nile. All this we can see most plainly by merely\\nobserving what our writer says of the serpent.\\nHe is not a spirit or power of the air, but simply\\na beast of the field which Jahveh Elohim had\\nmade. We cannot, therefore, conceive of him as\\na hostile power, Hke the Persian Angro-Mainyu,\\nindependent of Jahveh and opposed to Him. He\\nis Jahveh s creature. In regard to his form, he\\nis simply a snake, slipping along the ground\\nwith his head often buried in the dust. There is a\\nhint given, indeed, that this was not his original\\nform or mode of locomotion. What his original\\nmode of locomotion was we are not told, and un-\\nless his physical form had undergone a decided\\nchange, it would be hard for us to imagine. I\\nremember how Professor Konig, of Leipzig,\\nused to draw beautiful spirals on the blackboard\\nto show how the serpent was able to balance\\nhimself on his tail before his fall. As a matter\\nof fact, the serpent is a fallen animal, as the Book\\nof Genesis states, although I do not pretend to\\nsay that our author was aware of it. Evolu-\\ntionists tell us that the serpent was once a\\nshorter and thicker reptile, provided with four\\nlimbs, which have almost disappeared through dis-\\n(165)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0203.jp2"}, "204": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nuse. For reasons of his own he preferred to crawl\\nthrough the dust by powerfully constricting his\\nside muscles, so he was not allowed to keep his\\nlegs. The rudimentary legs, with all their bones,\\nhowever, are still developed, and are sometimes,\\nI believe, visible in young snakes. But all that is\\nbeside the subject. The serpent is represented\\nhere merely as a beast of the field without a single\\nmythical trait, so far as his appearance is con-\\ncerned, and if anything further is needed to\\nprove this, it is found in the fifteenth verse, where\\nthe serpent is conceived as capable of reproduc-\\ning himself and leaving an offspring, against\\nwhich man s well-known aversion to snakes\\nwages perpetual war.\\nAnd yet I need not tell you that this serpent is\\nno ordinary snake. He is able to speak and he is\\nwell acquainted with the secrets of God. The\\neasy way in which the serpent is introduced as a\\nfamiliar and well-known figure is very significant.\\nIt is true, our author (the Jehovist) also repre-\\nsents Balaam s ass as speaking. But that feat is\\nregarded as something unusual, and we may say\\nas a miracle, which is done not so much by the ass\\nas by God, who by the dumb ass reproved the\\nmadness of the prophet. His speech evidently\\ncaused Balaam a good deal of surprise. Nothing\\nof the kind, however, occurs here. The serpent\\nspeaks of his own accord and against the will of\\nGod rather than by it. And what is strangest is\\nthat the serpent s power of speech does not\\nstartle Eve in the least. She seems to accept it\\nas something perfectly natural, and at once joins\\nin conversation with him. Some persons have in-\\nferred from this that all the animals in the Garden\\n(i66)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0204.jp2"}, "205": {"fulltext": "A Moral Difficulty\\nof Eden were capable of speaking, like the ani-\\nmals in ^sop s Fables, and we shall hereafter see\\nthat there is some ground for this supposition.\\nThe manner of introducing this speaking serpent,\\nwithout explanation, implies that he was a more\\nor less well-known mythical being.\\nThe way in which his character is drawn is\\nalso very striking. We are accustomed to think\\nof him as wicked, but we are only told that he\\nwas wise. Not only is he wise himself, but he\\nadmires God s wisdom. He is drawn very con-\\nsistently as a wise being without a conscience.\\nObedience to God for God s sake is an idea that\\nsimply does not occur to him. He is governed\\nby principles of enlightened selfishness. He does\\nnot tempt the woman to any deed of shame. He\\ndoes not even advise her to conceal her fault.\\nHe merely recommends her to do the wisest\\nthing in the world, to eat of the fruit of the tree\\nthat will make her like God, knowing good and\\nevil.\\nRight here occurs one of the gravest diffi-\\nculties in the whole chapter, because it is a moral\\ndifficulty. I have wrestled with it according to\\nmy strength and I must candidly admit that I\\ncannot solve it. Almost all commentators, how-\\never, solve it by ignoring it. It is this God warns\\nthe man not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of\\ngood and evil, solemnly assuring him that on the\\nday he eats thereof he shall surely die. There is\\nno use in attempting to soften that expression\\ninto become mortal, or thou shalt begin to\\ndie, etc. The expression is as strong and as cer-\\ntain as words can make it. In the day that thou\\nshalt eat of it, thou shalt die of death. The ser-\\n(167)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0205.jp2"}, "206": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\npent, however, assures the woman that she shall\\nnot die, and apparently it is he who tells the\\ntruth, for both Adam and Eve, after they have\\neaten of the fruit, live for many, many years.\\nThis apparent falsehood weighed heavily on the\\nheart of the Jewish church. In the Talmud the\\nexplanation given is that with the Lord one day\\nlasts a thousand years, and as Adam died when\\nhe was only nine hundred and thirty years old,\\nJahveh kept his word to him. As I said before,\\nthe motive of the author in this strange state-\\nment remains to me perfectly inexplicable.*\\nNow we may go on with our translation.\\n1. And he said to the woman, Did Elohim actually say,\\nYou shall not eat of any tree of the garden\\nYou will observe that the serpent is not al-\\nlowed to make use of the holy name Jahveh,\\nwhich, as God s peculiar revelation to His peo-\\nple, would be out of place in the serpent s mouth.\\nThe half-contemptuous tone of surprise he em-\\nploys is intended to rouse suspicions of God s\\ngoodness in the woman s mind.\\n2, 3. And the woman said to the serpent, We do eat of\\nthe fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the\\ntree in the middle of the garden Elohim has said, Ye shall\\nnot eat it and shall not touch it lest ye die!\\nOne thought contained in this text may not oc-\\ncur to many readers. Eve had not heard God\\nsay that. She was not yet in existence (as an indi-\\nvidual) when God laid that command upon Adam.\\nShe had only learned of it afterward through him,\\nand it will be observed that Adam, hke a good\\nhusband, had exaggerated the command to her\\nSee, however, page 251.\\n(168)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0206.jp2"}, "207": {"fulltext": "Tree of Knowledge a Unique Conception\\nand made it stricter than it really was. God had\\nsaid nothing about touching the fruit. On Eve,\\ntherefore, the comrnand would not have made\\nthe same impression that it made on Adam. That\\nmay be one reason why the serpent addressed\\nhimself to her. Another reason may be that the\\nwise serpent knew that in conquering the woman\\nhe would also conquer the man, whereas if he\\ntempted Adam first. Eve might escape altogether.\\nFor, while it is not unusual to see women hold-\\ning themselves proudly aloof from the vices of\\ntheir husbands, and warned rather than contami-\\nnated by their example, rarely does one find a\\nman better than his wife.\\nThe way in which this tree is introduced has\\ngiven rise to much comment and it certainly im-\\nplies some confusion in the mind of the writer.\\nIt is the Tree of Life, not the Tree of Knov/ledge,\\nthat is in the middle of the garden. Many schol-\\nars have thought, on this account, that originally\\nthere was but one tree, the Tree of Life, and that\\nthe Tree of Knowledge was introduced clumsily\\nas an afterthought. But I would rather believe\\nthat the Tree of Life was a part of the original\\ntradition, and that the Tree of Knowledge, for\\nwhich no real counterpart has been discovered\\nanywhere, and which is so essential to the nar-\\nrative, was the personal conception of the Je-\\nhovist, which he was not able to adjust perfectly\\nto the old tradition.*\\n4, 5. And the serpent said to the woman, You will in no\\nwise die. For Elohim knows that in the day you eat of it\\nyour eyes will open and you will be like Elohim, knowing\\ngood and evil.\\nSee Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, p. 3, note i.\\nO69)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0207.jp2"}, "208": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nAll this is planned with the utmost cunning.\\nEve, it will be observed, does not know the na-\\nture of the Tree of Knowledge. She calls it\\nmerely the tree in the midst of the garden.\\nAdam, if he was enlightened himself on this sub-\\nject, like many husbands and like most parents,\\nhad kept Eve entirely in the dark, and with the\\ninvariable result. She is instructed by the temp-\\nter. Knowledge and temptation are intertwined.\\nFrom the union with knowledge temptation be-\\ncomes a thousand times more formidable. See\\nnow with what admirable skill the serpent returns\\nto his task. Having induced the woman to con-\\nfess the severity of God s command, he now\\nboldly invites her to break it, first by promising\\nher that the penalty God has affixed to the viola-\\ntion of His commandment will not happen to her,\\nand so removing her fear, and then by impugning\\nGod s motive, accusing Him of both falsehood\\nand envy, and so destroying her love and trust.\\nThe yielding of the woman is drawn with a mas-\\nter s hand. It is the history of every lost battle\\nof the human soul. We dally with temptation,\\ndrawing near the forbidden object, allowing it to\\nmake its deepest impression on both our senses\\nand our mind, while we assure ourselves all the\\nwhile that nothing will induce us to yield; and\\nthen, even while we are assuring ourselves, we\\nput forth our hands and eat.\\n6. And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and\\npleasant to the eyes, and that it was a tree to be desired to\\nmake one wise, and she took of the fruit and ate of it, and\\nshe gave some to her husband beside her and he did eat.\\nFor time out of mind this act has been cited\\n(170)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0208.jp2"}, "209": {"fulltext": "Adam and Eve Contrasted\\nas a proof of woman s inferiority to man. How\\nmany books have been written on the strength\\nof this story to prove the frailty and sinfulness of\\nwoman And yet in the story itself Eve plays a\\ndecidedly superior role to that of her husband. It\\nwas on her, not on him, that the serpent concen-\\ntrated all his seductive power. Eve yielded, it is\\ntrue, but she yielded to an intelligence and expe-\\nrience superior to her own. But what a part\\nAdam plays! He leaves his wife alone to the\\nmercies of the serpent. At all events, Adam is\\nnot subjected to his cajoling arguments. The\\nserpent does not waste a word on him. He\\ntakes it for granted that if he can carry Eve he\\nwill have Adam also. And he is quite right, for\\nAdam, so far as we are told, does not offer the\\nleast resistance. He does not bring forward a\\nsingle argument. Apparently he does not re-\\nmember the command of God at all. Eve has\\nonly to ofifer him the forbidden fruit and he ac-\\ncepts it with the greatest pleasure. And then, of\\ncourse, he has the satisfaction of laying the blame\\nof his sin on her, and even on God, who had given\\nhim such a wife. This picture, I believe, was\\ndrawn by a married man, and by one who knew\\nmen and women equally well.\\nWhat follows is, perhaps, the profoundest\\ntouch in the whole story.\\n7. Then the eyes of them both were opened and they\\nknew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and\\nmade themselves girdles.\\nUp to this time it is evident that they had\\nmoved about with the happy unconsciousness of\\ninnocent children. The first object on which\\n(171)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0209.jp2"}, "210": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ntheir enlightened eyes now fall is their own na-\\nkedness. The first thought their newly acquired\\nknowledge brings them is the sense of their own\\nshame. At the same time I want you to notice\\nhow closely the idea of growing knowledge is\\ninterwoven with the sense of guilt. The man and\\nhis wife perceived that they were naked, and that\\nbrought them shame. But it is precisely this\\nperception which separates man from the ani-\\nmals, and in this nascent sense of modesty we see\\nthe Tree of Knowledge beginning its work.\\nThe animals are naked and know it not. One of\\nman s most rooted instincts is to cover his naked-\\nness; and low indeed must one descend in the\\nscale of humanity to discover a people without\\na trace of natural modesty. Men wear clothes for\\nthree reasons: to protect them from the cold,\\nto adorn them and give them an air of distinc-\\ntion, and from a sense of modesty, reserve and\\ndignity, on which a large part of character de-\\npends and which is really the deepest motive of\\nall. This last was the motive that led Adam\\nand Eve to make them girdles of fig leaves and\\nby so doing they performed an act which no ani-\\nmal has ever attempted. So these two results fol-\\nlow from the eating of the forbidden fruit of\\nknowledge. The first great step is taken which\\nin time separates man absolutely from the ani-\\nmal kingdom. The man becomes self-conscious.\\nSuddenly he sees himself for the first time and\\nperceives his own nakedness. That inspires him\\nwith a sense of shame, and that shame, that felt\\nwant, drives him into adapting the objects of\\nNature to satisfy his needs. They sewed fig\\nleaves together and made themselves aprons.\\n(172)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0210.jp2"}, "211": {"fulltext": "The Arraignment of Adam\\nI will merely remark here that the mention of the\\nfig tree, whose pointed leaves are not well adapted\\nto this purpose and which seems to be selected\\nhere only because of its commonness, substan-\\ntiates the assertion that this narrative did not\\noriginate in Babylonia, for Herodotus tells us\\nexpressly that the plains of the Tigris and Eu-\\nphrates are outside the zone in which the fig tree\\nflourishes.\\n8. And they heard the sound of Jahveh Elohim as He\\nwalked in the garden in the evening cool [literally, to-\\nward the blowing of the day and the man and his wife\\nhid themselves from the face of Jahveh Elohim among the\\ntrees of the garden.\\nGod s walking about the garden in the cool of\\nthe evening breeze is taken for granted. What is\\nnew is that man is not there to meet him. This\\nis most naturally depicted. The first and sad-\\ndest consequence of sin is that it makes us afraid\\nof God. Accordingly,\\n9. Jahveh Elohim called to the man and said, Where art\\nthou?\\nWe need not suppose that God did not know\\nbehind what particular bush the man and his\\nwife were hiding. He calls to the man in order\\nthat the man may come to Him, and so He calls\\nto sinful men still, Where art thou That is\\na hard question for a guilty man to answer. But\\nit is better to answer it and to come to God, even\\nfor punishment, than to hide from God like a\\ncoward and an outcast, while His eyes see\\nthrough us all the time.\\nID. And he said, I heard Thy voice in the garden and I\\nwas afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.\\n(173)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0211.jp2"}, "212": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThat was Adam s first lie; not because he was\\nnaked, but because he had violated the command\\nof God did he fear and hide.\\n11. And He [Jahveh Elohim] said, Who told thee that\\nthou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree of which I\\ncommanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?\\nThe accusation implied in that question Adam-\\ncannot at once confess or deny. This is his first\\nsin. He has not the defiance or hardihood of an\\nhabitual evil-doer. His one thought is to shift\\nthe blame, like a child, to some one else, so he\\nlays the responsibility on his wife and even indi-\\nrectly on God Himself. How many times have\\nwe heard that excuse\\n12. And the man said, The woman whom Thou gavest\\nto be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat.\\nGod s patience and His all-searching justice\\nare beautifully displayed in this interrogation.\\nHe patiently turns from one to the other until\\nthe guilt is fixed, and then the penalty is awarded\\nto each without violence or wrath.\\n13. Jahveh Elohim said to the woman, Why hast thou\\ndone this? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled\\nme and I ate.\\nIt will be observed that Jahveh asks no ques-\\ntions of the serpent. He has no need to inquire\\ninto the serpent s motive, because, as an animal,\\nthe serpent is without moral responsibility. If\\na spiritual being, a devil, a fallen angel lurked in\\nthis serpent it would manifest itself here. How-\\never, he is and remains nothing but a beast, hence\\nhe can be punished only as a beast, without ap-\\npeal to a moral nature which does not exist.\\n(m)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0212.jp2"}, "213": {"fulltext": "Punishment of the Serpent\\n14. Jahveh Elohim said to the serpent, Because thou\\nhast done this, cursed art thou among all cattle [or, thou art\\nseparated by a curse from all cattle], and among [from]\\nall animals of the earth; thou shalt go upon thy belly and\\ndust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.\\n15. I will establish enmity between thee and the wom-\\nan, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall make at\\nthy head, and thou shalt make at its heel.\\nTwo punishments are here affixed to the ser-\\npent: first a weird, sinister, degraded form and\\nmeans of locomotion; and secondly, instead of\\nfriendly and intimate relationship, eternal enmity\\nbetween the serpent and man. It appears from\\nthis that God looks forward to the reproduction\\nof the human race as something normal and to be\\nexpected. In the allusion to the seed of the wom-\\nan which shall bruise the serpent s head, theo-\\nlogians, and especially Martin Luther, have seen\\nthe first promise of the Messiah hence this pas-\\nsage is called the Protevangelium. Its force,\\nso far as the victory is concerned, is somewhat\\ndiminished by the fact that the application of\\nthe serpent s poisonous fang to man s heel is\\nquite as deadly as the application of man s heel\\nto the serpent s head. And yet there is a glori-\\nous and unmistakable promise here of man s\\neternal struggle with evil, and of man s ultimate\\nvictory over the power that leads him astray.\\nA struggle ordained by God, as Dillmann well\\nsays, cannot be without prospect of success.\\nBoth the serpent and Eve are personally pun-\\nished because they had tempted another. Adam,\\nwho only yielded to temptation, is dealt with\\nmore mildly.\\n16. To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy\\npain and thy conception. In sorrow shalt thou bear chil-\\n(175)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0213.jp2"}, "214": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ndren: thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule\\nover thee.\\nJust as the serpent is punished through the\\nwoman whom he misled, so the woman is pun-\\nished through the man whom she led astray.\\nThese words do not so much seal the sad fate of\\nwoman as they describe her fate. In addition to\\nthe pains of childbirth, she is to experience pain\\nthrough her relationship with man. She is no\\nlonger represented as the fresh, pure maiden\\nGod gave to Adam but she is woman as man has\\nmade her, a very different object. In some re-\\nspects man has been woman s greatest enemy,\\nfor he has lived and thrived at her expense. On\\naccount of his superiority in physical strength,\\nhe has been able to enslave her. The sufferings\\nof woman in savage, barbarous, and semi-civil-\\nized society can never be told. Women will carry\\nthe scars of that long serfdom on their hearts\\nlong after they have disappeared from their bod-\\nies. To all men acquainted with the history of\\nthe human race, the marvel must be that through\\nthose dark centuries of oppression and outrage\\nin which women possessed no rights, even over\\ntheir own persons and consciences, they have\\nbeen able to preserve their spirituahty and a\\nmoral conscience. To me this is one of the most\\nwonderful survivals in history. And yet, no\\nsooner is the hand of her cruel master taken off,\\nand the opportunities of the higher hfe opened to\\nher, than woman shows she has preserved all her\\nprecious qualities of heart and mind for a genera-\\ntion of men capable of appreciating them. To-\\nday the long bondage is almost broken. Woman\\nhas again become what God in the beginning in-\\n(^76)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0214.jp2"}, "215": {"fulltext": "Mortal Fate of Man\\ntended her to be man s helpmeet, on a perfect\\nequality with him. She is free to develop ac-\\ncording to the needs of her nature, and the more\\nfreely and perfectly woman develops, the better\\nfor us all. And so, please God, in this genera-\\ntion we may see the end of the curse that began\\non the day when it was said, Thy desire shall be\\nto thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. To\\nmany persons these words will seem strange and\\nextravagant. Anthropologists will understand\\nthem.*\\n17, 18, 19. And to the man He said, Since thou hast\\nhearkened to the voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the\\ntree of which I commanded thee not to eat, accursed be\\nthe ground for thy sake. In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all\\nthe days of thy life. Thorns and thistles it shall bring\\nforth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. Thou\\nshalt eat thy bread by the sweat of thy brow until thou re-\\nturn to the ground from which thou hast been taken, for\\ndust thou art and to the dust shalt thou return.\\nThis is a gloomy picture of lifelong struggle\\nwith a stubborn and rebeUious soil, and yet this\\ncurse has turned out to be man s chief blessing\\nhere below. Man has become what he is solely\\nthrough his work. Man s mortal fate is here\\nspoken of for the first time. As he comes from\\nthe earth, there will be a time of return to the\\nearth of which he is made. Man is by nature\\nmortal and was so from the beginning. Of any\\nhint that man was created deathless and lost his\\nimmortality through sin, there is not a trace.\\nImmortality is represented as a possibility com-\\ning through something outside of man the Tree\\nof Life but to that man does not attain.\\nSee, for example, H. Ploss, Das Weib in der Natur-und-\\nVolkerkunde. 2 vols., Leipzig, 1891.\\n(177)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0215.jp2"}, "216": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n20. The man called his wife Havvah [Life], because she\\nwas the mother of all living.\\nHere is a slip one might say an anachronism.\\nAt this time not only was Eve not a mother, but\\nneither Adam nor she knew what fatherhood\\nor motherhood is.\\n21. And Jahveh Elohim made for Adam and his wife\\ncoats of skin and clothed them.\\nGod respects this newly found modesty and\\nprotects it, or perhaps warmer garments were\\nneeded in the cold world into which they were\\nabout to be driven. We need not suppose from\\nthis, howevei, that Eden lay at the North Pole,\\nas skins formed the dress of primitive man even\\nin mild regions.* The first animal that was killed\\ndied for the sake of man.\\n22. 23, 24. And Jahveh Elohim said, Behold, the man\\nhas become like one of us, knowing good and evil, but\\nnow, that he may not stretch out his hand and take of the\\nTree of Life and eat and live forever! And Jahveh Elo-\\nhim drove him out of the garden of Eden that he might\\ncultivate the ground out of which he was taken. So He\\nput out the man, and He placed to the East of the garden\\nof Eden Cherubim and the framing blade of the sword\\nwhich turns to keep the way of the Tree of Life.\\nThis is one of the most curious passages in the\\nentire chapter. Jahveh is apparently much more\\njealous of the Tree of Life than He is of the\\nBrugsch calls attention to a native tribe in the interior of\\nAfrica, the Monbutter, who still wear aprons made of palm\\nleaves, while their near neighbors, the Niamniam, clothe them-\\nselves in skins. No conclusion, therefore, as to the geographical\\nsite of Eden can be drawn from the mention of fig leaves and\\nskins in Genesis. On ancient Egyptian monuments the figures\\nof distinguished men are frequently represented as clad in skins.\\nSee Steinschrift und Bibelwort, ch. 4.\\n(n8)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0216.jp2"}, "217": {"fulltext": "Jahveh Guards Tree of Life\\nTree of Kowledge. Man is already like God, or,\\nwe are here justified in saying, like the gods in\\nknowledge. If he should eat of the Tree of Life,\\nhe would become altogether like God in that he\\ntoo would live forever. That is plainly what God\\nfears, and that is the real reason why man is\\ndriven out of Paradise. But why did not man\\neat of that incomparable Tree before? And\\nwhy did not God lay even stricter injunctions on\\nhim in regard to the Tree of Life than in regard\\nto the Tree of Knowledge? It will be remem-\\nbered that God never prohibited man from eat-\\ning of the Tree of Life. The reason seems to be\\nthis. Up to the time that man s eyes were opened\\nhe was too ignorant to know the value of the Tree\\nof Life. He did not know life nor fear death,\\ntherefore he had no desire for immortality. So\\nGod knew that he was in no danger of eating of\\nthat tree. Or it may be that in the author s mind\\na profounder thought lay, that until man had\\ntasted of the Tree of Knowledge it was impos-\\nsible for him to taste the Tree of Life. Even that\\nTree of Life could not bestow immortality on\\nman so long as he remained in his first animal\\ncondition of ignorance. One of these two mean-\\nings we may be sure lay at the bottom of Jahveh s\\nsudden apprehension, which is not mentioned be-\\nfore, and which led Jahveh not only to expel the\\nman from the garden immediately lest he should\\nput forth his hand and eat and live forever, but\\nalso to set round the Tree a double guard of co-\\nlossal Cherubim and a whirHng sword of fire\\nwhich turned every way to keep the way of the\\nTree of Life.\\nA few words now on the purpose of this as-\\n(179)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0217.jp2"}, "218": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ntonishing story. The reason why it is so hard for\\nus either to understand these two chapters or, in\\nspite of their depth and charm, to give them our\\nfull approval, I believe is this. The purpose of\\nthese chapters is not a single purpose, as is\\nusually assumed. On the contrary, a double\\nmotive runs through them. We see in them two\\nconceptions, the beginning of sin and the begin-\\nning of knowledge, so closely interwoven that it\\nis very difficult to disentangle them. That is why\\nit is so hard for us to know just where our sym-\\npathy should be placed. The problem of knowl-\\nedge is certainly there. The tree is to be de-\\nsired to make one wise. The knowledge of good\\nand evil that the man and his wife acquired by\\neating it, is not mere intuitive perception of right\\nand wrong that it is right to obey God and\\nwrong to disobey Him. They had that percep-\\ntion before they ate, else they would have had no\\nmore moral responsibility than the serpent, and\\nwithout moral responsibility they would have had\\nno sin. The first step in human knowledge is a\\nglorious theme, but our joy is checked at once\\nby the fact that that act was in direct violation\\nof the command of God and that it was se-\\nverely punished. The two conflicting motives,\\nI repeat, are present in this story, and all those\\ncommentators and writers who ignore either the\\none or the other fail in their solution of the prob-\\nlem by making it too simple. The old-fashioned\\ncommentators recognized only the problem of\\nevil and ignored the problem of knowledge.\\nMany of the more intelligent recent writers fix\\ntheir eyes solely on the beginning of human\\nknowledge and, fired by that thought, they deny\\n(i8o)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0218.jp2"}, "219": {"fulltext": "Jahveh Jealous of Man\\nthe tragical element altogether. According to\\nthem, there is no fall. Everything in this chap-\\nter points to progress, to liberty, or, at most,\\nto a fall upward, beata culpa, etc. No doubt\\nthe story would be simpler and to many persons\\nmore satisfactory were only one of these ele-\\nments present, but the fact remains that they are\\nboth there, and neither can be eliminated without\\ndoing violence to the spirit and letter of the nar-\\nrative. Why, then, does our author associate so\\nclosely the beginning of -knowledge with the be-\\nginning of sin? There is one thing very appar-\\nent. Jahveh is to a certain extent jealous oL\\nman. It cannot be denied that Jahveh misrep-\\nresented to the man what the effect of eating\\nthe fruit of the Tree of Knowledge would be.\\nHe conceals from man the fact that by eating the\\nfruit he will become Hke God, knowing good\\nand evil. Eve is indebted to the serpent for\\nthat information. Jahveh merely tells Adam\\nthat the result of eating will be immediate death,\\nwhich is not true. This element of jealousy be-\\ncomes more apparent in Jahveh s fear lest the\\nman should become more like Him by eating of\\nthe Tree of Life. That is undoubtedly one reason\\nwhy God forbade men knowledge. He wished to\\nreserve it for Himself. But coupled with this\\ngenuinely ancient and naive divine jealousy\\nthere is a deeper and a gentler thought that all\\nthe reflection in the world cannot invalidate. He\\nthat increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.\\nIn such a world as this it is impossible to know\\ngood without knowing evil. The moment man s\\nspiritual eyes are opened he perceives his own\\nnakedness. An entirely new feeling takes posses-\\n(i8i)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0219.jp2"}, "220": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nsion of him. He sees himself through other eyes\\nthan the eyes of the flesh and he feels shame for\\nthe nakedness and poverty of his animal nature.\\nIn short, with the awakening of his soul a cleft is\\nestablished that runs to the very foundations of\\nhis being. The two sides of his nature are set\\nin array against each other and the struggle be-\\ngins that shall never end until the spiritual, hav-\\ning gradually set itself free from the material, ob-\\ntains permanent ascendancy over it. But from\\nthat moment man is a fallen being. He feels\\nwhat, so far as we know, the animal does not feel,\\nremorse, shame and guilt. Once set before man\\nan ideal to which his better instincts tell him he\\nought to conform his life, and he can never be\\nanything else than a fallen being, though it is pre-\\ncisely the perception of that ideal which is the be-\\nginning of man s spiritual existence.\\nIt is our author s recognition of this truth which\\nlies embedded in all our hearts, that has caused\\nthis story, so crude in some respects, so profound\\nin others, to be accepted in good faith by so\\nlarge a part of the world. Knowledge is the\\nthing that man most desires. But knowledge\\nseldom brings happiness. To obtain it it is nec-\\nessary to sacrifice the peace and repose of a happy\\nanimal life. Knowledge also and this is one of\\nour author s finest thoughts cannot be sepa-\\nrated from life. In quality it is essentially moral.\\nAll knowledge at bottom is knowledge of good\\nand evil, and man having once become wise, the\\nold negative life of restful innocence is no longer\\npossible. Suddenly he finds himself outside the\\nold Paradise, where God did everything and man\\nnothing. He is now face to face with the great,", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0220.jp2"}, "221": {"fulltext": "Life an Endless Struggle\\nrude, hard world, which he must conquer and\\nsubjugate spiritually and materially by incredible\\nlabors that will never end. He must suffer and\\nhe must sin, but at the same time there is im-\\nplanted in his breast implacable enmity for the\\nwhole brood of the serpent on whose head he\\nwill finally place his heel. He has become a man\\nand never again can he sink himself in an animal\\nsleep. Cherubim and a flaming sword threaten\\nhim with annihilation as often as he attempts to\\nreturn to the old existence. They are set to\\nguard the way of the Tree of Life, a significant\\nhint that man will never find immortality or en-\\nduring rest in this world. I do not know that\\nthe conditions of our earthly struggle have ever\\nbeen set forth in better terms than these.\\nWith all this the origin of evil is not explained.\\nAccording to the plain statement of the text,\\nJahveh Elohim made the serpent, and therefore\\nHe alone is responsible for him. It would not\\nalter the case if we regarded the serpent as Satan.\\nAccording to the Old Testament, God made\\nSatan also. But if we assume Satan to be a hos-\\ntile being, independent of God, then we leave the\\npure monotheism of the Bible for the dualism of\\nPersia. We rescue the goodness of God, it is\\ntrue, but at the expense of His almightiness and\\ninfinity.\\n(183)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0221.jp2"}, "222": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Ten:\\nEden in the Mythology of the Nations\\n1 SHALL now attempt to account, as well as\\nI can, for some of the strange conceptions\\nof the second and third chapters of Genesis.\\nThis, as I have said, is a very difficult task. No\\nman, with the best will in the world, and possess-\\ning all the authentic knowledge at this moment in\\nprint, can successfully perform it. Any one who\\nwrites on this subject now has the melancholy\\nconsciousness that he is writing on the sand with\\na rising tide and that in a few years advancing\\nknowledge will render what he writes almost\\nworthless. At the same time it is something to\\ncall attention to a great problem, even if we can-\\nnot solve it.\\nThe problem of the second and third chapters\\nof Genesis, as I conceive it, is something like this\\nThese two remarkable chapters, although they\\nbear on every verse the imprint of a great, in-\\nspired mind, contain a great deal of matter that\\ndid not originate with the man whom we regard\\nas their author (the Jehovist). These two chap-\\nters contain a number of symbolic, mythical fig-\\nures closely interwoven with the sacred narrative,\\nsuch as the garden of Eden, the serpent, the Tree\\nof Knowledge and the Tree of Life, the Cheru-\\nbim and the whirling sword of fire, which are\\n__", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0222.jp2"}, "223": {"fulltext": "Foreign Elements\\nfreely and easily introduced without a word of\\nexplanation. Now the very peculiarity of\\nmythical symbols of this kind is that they are not\\noriginally the result of conscious Hterary inven-\\ntion, but belong to the unconscious, creative\\nperiod of religion which antedates the art of writ-\\ning. Besides, several of these symbols, as we\\nshall soon see, have unmistakable counterparts\\nin the religious traditions of other nations. An-\\nother fact is very significant. There is not only\\nsomething strange in the sound of these chap-\\nters, which are unUke anything else in the Bible,\\nbut it is still more remarkable that these chap-\\nters, which so wonderfully portray the creation of\\nman and try to account for the origin of human\\nsin, are not once alluded to in the Old Testament.\\nIn many respects one would regard the third\\nchapter of Genesis as the most important chapter\\nof the Hebrew Scriptures. It accounts in the\\nmost striking way for the very difficulty with which\\nall the other writers of the Old Testament are\\ncontinually wrestling, and it is comparatively old.\\nHow does it happen, then, that the later prophets,\\nto go no further, did not accept its solution of\\nthe difficulty and refer the origin of man s sinful-\\nness back to Adam? And yet the fact remains\\nthat outside the Book of Genesis Adam s name\\noccurs only once or twice in the Old Testament,\\nand that no other Old Testament writer referred\\nthe cause of man s sinfulness to him. The only\\nreason I can suggest for this is that the prophets\\nand other canonical writers, some of whom\\nat least must have known this story, felt that\\nit contained strange elements which did not grow\\non the soil of Israel s revealed religion, and\\n(185)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0223.jp2"}, "224": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nso forebore to make use of its brilliant and won-\\nderful solution of the difficulty. That other tra-\\nditions of Eden, however, existed among the He-\\nbrews is certain, and I remind you especially of\\nEzekiel s wonderful vision,* of which I shall soon\\nspeak.\\nI believe that there are the remains of very\\nancient traditions in these chapters but that the\\nstory itself, or even its leading motive, is merely\\none of the mythical traditions of the Gentiles I\\ndo not believe for a moment. On the contrary,\\nwe shall see to what a slight extent these tradi-\\ntions help us. The motive of our two chapters,\\nthe real revelation of God and man which they\\ncontain, is the personal achievement of the di-\\nvinely inspired man who penned those pages.\\nThat fact becomes all the more evident when we\\ncompare the story as it left his hands with the\\nsources which, so far as we are now able to say,\\nhe may have employed.\\nNow let us proceed to our investigation. We\\nshall begin by a general comparison of the con-\\nceptions of the primitive condition of mankind\\nentertained by the great cultured peoples, and\\nthen discuss some more striking particulars. The\\nbelief that the first condition of mankind was one\\nof Edenic felicity is almost universal. I shall\\ngive only a few examples. The Egyptians be-\\nlieved that the first sons and daughters of Ra,\\nthe sun god, came into the world happy and per-\\nfect, but that their descendants gradually sank\\nfrom their native felicity to their present state.\\nTo the Egyptians, the times of Ra, the centuries\\nimmediately following creation, were the ideal\\nFor a further account of Ezekiel s Eden, see p. 221.\\n(186)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0224.jp2"}, "225": {"fulltext": "Egyptian Eden\\nage. Hence the expression No good thing has\\nbeen seen on earth since the days of Ra.\\nThe Egyptians also knew of a certain land of\\nwonder which they placed in the East, and which\\nthey always called the land of God. Unhke\\nthe Garden of Eden, this land was still accessible\\nto man, and from the earliest times voyages were\\nmade to it. Although this country was fre-\\nquently visited by Egyptian mariners, their slen-\\nder acquaintance with it was not sufficient to rob\\nthe region of its mythical glamour. As it lay to\\nthe east of Egypt it was fabled to be the home of\\nthe light god who w^th his attendants came from\\nthere to the valley of the Nile. It seems to have\\nowed its religious character, in part at least, to\\nthe nature of its products, chief of which was\\na balsamic gum of agreeable perfume, highly\\nprized in the services of the temples. Hence it\\nwas said The mountain terraces of the balsam\\nare the precious region of the land of the god.\\nThis land lay somewhere on the southern coast of\\nthe Red Sea. A papyrus of King Rameses Hl.f\\ninforms us that he sent the ships of his fleet to the\\nlands of God on the shore of the Red Sea to col-\\nlect specimens of all the wonderful and precious\\nproducts of the country. From the enumera-\\ntion of these products, which include, in addition\\nto gold and incense, elephants, giraffes, ebony,\\netc., it would appear that this favored land was\\nnot in Arabia but on the eastern coast of Africa\\n(Brugsch thinks between Abyssinia and the old\\nharbor of Berenice) in short, in the region which\\nMaspero Dawn of Civilization, p. 158, note 3.\\nf Papyrus. Harris, No. i. British Museum. Quoted by\\nBrugsch.\\n(187)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0225.jp2"}, "226": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthe Biblical writers called Cush, not far from\\nsome of the sources of the Nile. This being the\\ncase, it is not improbable that the Hebrews were\\ninfluenced by the Egyptian tradition to regard\\nthe Nile as one of the rivers of their Garden of\\nEden. At all events this theory offers a reason-\\nable explanation for the association of Eden with\\nthe Nile and the land of Cush, which has had such\\na confusing effect on sacred geography.* The\\nsite of the Garden of Eden, in other words, may\\nbe a compromise between the Babylonian and\\nthe Egyptian traditions of paradise. These tra-\\nditions being geographically irreconcilable, we\\ncannot wonder that the Garden of Eden is so\\nhard to find. These allusions to an Egyption\\nparadise, however, contain no allusion to a\\nFall, and, in fact, the Egyptian Land of\\nGod bears hardly any resemblance to the Gar-\\nden of Eden.\\nAmong the Aryan peoples this belief took defi-\\nnite form in the tradition of the Four Ages of\\nthe World, and from the fact that it is found\\namong the Hindus and Persians as well as among\\nthe Greeks and Romans, it is evident that the\\nlegend is very old older, possibly, than the sup-\\nposed separation of the Aryan peoples.\\nIn the laws of Manu it is asserted that the his-\\ntory of humanity runs through four ages, con-\\nsisting altogether of 12,000 divine years, or\\n4,320,000 human years. First comes the Krita\\nage, the age of perfection, when all religious\\nduties were perfectly fulfilled. Then follows the\\nTrita age, the triple sacrifice. The third is the\\nDvapara age, the age of growing doubt and con-\\nSee Brugsch, Steinschrift und Bibelwort, ch. 3.\\n(188)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0226.jp2"}, "227": {"fulltext": "ZOROASTRIAN GeNESIS\\nfusion as to religious duties, and lastly the Kali\\nage of general perdition in which we are now liv-\\ning and which will end in the destruction of the\\nworld. In the Krita, or first age, men are free\\nfrom disease, accomplish all their aims, and live\\nfour hundred years, but in each succeeding age\\nby unjust gains, theft, and deceit, their life is\\nshortened by one quarter and their religious\\nduties become less exalted, until, in the Kali age,\\nin which we are living, they live but one hundred\\nyears and the only virtue they can practise is\\nliberality.*\\nWe pass next to the religion of Zoroaster.\\nThe plainest statement I have been able to find\\nis contained in the first chapter of the Bundahesh\\nor Creation of the Beginning, which corre-\\nsponds in a general way with our Genesis in at-\\ntempting to give an account of Creation. It is a\\nlate book, to be sure, but there is no reason to\\ndoubt that it represents the ancient myths and\\nlegends of the religion.f It represents the\\nwhole age of the world as twelve thousand years,\\ndivided into four periods of three thousand years\\neach. During the first period the good deity\\nAhuramazd reigns alone in endless light. Ahar-\\nman at that time was in the abyss, and between\\nthem was empty space. Ahuramazd, by his om-\\nniscience, knew of the evil one s existence, but\\nAharman, who was backward in knowledge, was\\nnot aware of the existence of Ahuramazd until he\\nrose from the abyss and saw the light for the first\\ntime and all the good creatures Ahuramazd had\\nLaws of Manu, i. 68-86 also, Lenormant, p. 68.\\nI See Sacred Books of the East, vol. v., p. Ixxi., for a dis-\\ncussion of this question.\\n(189)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0227.jp2"}, "228": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ncreated. Filled with fury, he rushed in and\\nwished to destroy them all, but Ahuramazd was\\nvery gentle with him, and said, Evil Spirit,\\nbring assistance to my creatures and offer praise,\\nso that in reward for it you and your creatures\\nmay become immortal and undecaying, hunger-\\nless and thirstless. But the Evil Spirit shouted\\nback to him, I will not provide assistance for\\nthy creatures, I will not offer praise\\nand I am not of the same opinion with thee as to\\ngood things. I will destroy thy creatures forever\\nand everlasting; moreover, I will force all thy\\ncreatures into disaffection for thee and affection\\nfor myself. So the great conflict begins that\\nlasts through the remaining three periods of\\nthe world. During the first three thousand years\\nAhuramazd is successful. Then for three thou-\\nsand years the battle wages about evenly, until\\nfinally, in the age in which we are now living,\\nAharman is successful all along the Hne. The\\nPersian conception, however, does not end with\\nthe miserable thought that good is finally de-\\nfeated and evil victorious. At the end of this\\nage comes the resurrection of the dead, and the\\nutter defeat and destruction of Aharman and his\\nevil creatures, who will be thrown into hell and\\nburned up.*\\nAmong the Greeks, Hesiod, in his Works\\nand Days, also divided the history of the world\\ninto four ages. The first is a state of primeval\\nbliss, which he calls the Age of Gold. Then\\nKronos reigned upon the earth and men lived\\nwithout care, pain or old age. Their death was\\nThe Bundahesh leaves the fate of Aharman unsettled the\\nZend Avesta is more decided.\\n(.190)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0228.jp2"}, "229": {"fulltext": "Four Ages of the World\\nlike the coming on of sleep and the soil bore\\nthem fruits untilled. The next age was the Silver\\nAge, for it was inferior to the first, and Zeus\\nspeedily swept it away, seeing that the men of this\\ngeneration waxed insolent and paid no honor to\\nthe gods. The third is the Brazen Age. A ter-\\nrible and mighty brood of men who delighted in\\nnothing but violence and war possessed the land.\\nThey first ate flesh. Their houses and armor and\\nmattocks were of brass. In strife they slew them-\\nselves, and perished without a name. After them\\nare interposed the good heroes who fell before\\nThebes and Troy. And then Hesiod cries,\\nWould that I had never been born in the fifth\\ngeneration of men, but rather that I had died be-\\nfore or lived afterward, for now the age is iron.\\nOn the face of the world is naught but violence\\nand wrong division is set up between father and\\nson, brother and brother, friend and friend.\\nThere is no fear of God, no sense of justice, no\\nfidelity and truth and against evil there\\nwill soon be no aid. This is the Iron Age.\\nThe doctrine of the Four Ages of the world cor-\\nresponds with the Book of Genesis simply to this\\nextent. The world at the beginning was created\\ngood and the first human beings, as we shall see\\nmore fully, were good and happy. But in all\\nthese Aryan myths there is a constant trend of\\ndegeneration in the very nature of things which\\ncauses the world and man to grow worse and\\nworse, until in the end they are destroyed. Of\\nthat gloomy doctrine of fatalism in Nature there\\nis in the Old Testament hardly a trace,t and we\\nJ. A. Symonds Greek Poets, i. 174.\\nf The nearest approach to the doctrine of the Four Ages\\n(191)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0229.jp2"}, "230": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmay very well explain the resemblance I have\\nmentioned by the natural tendency of the human\\nmind to idealize the past at the expense of the\\npresent, without supposing that the Ayran doc-\\ntrine of the Four Ages and the Hebrew doctrine\\nof the Fall have any direct connection.\\nLet us then come a little nearer. Among all\\nthe Aryan religions, as we have already seen, the\\none which stands nearest the religion of the Old\\nTestament in its monotheistic and moral ideals\\nis the religion of Zoroaster, from which in later\\ntimes the Hebrews borrowed a good deal. The\\nsacred books of Persia have a great many allu-\\nsions to a first man, who is generally called Yima.\\nHe unites to a certain extent the characteristics of\\nAdam and of Noah. He is represented as living\\nat first in a kind of Eden or Paradise, but, after a\\nlong and blameless life, he begins to give way to\\nthe assaults of the Evil One. He commits sin,\\nwhich descends to his posterity, and he comes\\nunder the power of the serpent, the creature of\\nAharman, in consequence of which he is expelled\\nfrom Paradise and dies in horrible torments.\\nThe story begins by Zoroaster s asking Ahura\\nMazda who was the first mortal with whom he\\nconversed and to whom he taught the true re-\\nligion, and he answers, The fair shepherd\\nYima. Ahura Mazda offers to make Yima the\\nteacher of his religion to men, but Yima declines\\non the ground that he was not born for that pur-\\nwhicli can fairly be discovered in the Hebrew Scriptures is the fol-\\nlowing I. The Golden Age of Eden s felicity. 2. A period of\\ndegeneration and shortening life ended by the Flood. 3. From\\nthe Flood to the Day of Jahveh, i.e., the destruction of the\\nworld by fire. 4. The Millennium, in which the Golden Age re-\\ntnrns to earth. This scheme, however, is of late origin.\\n(192)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0230.jp2"}, "231": {"fulltext": "The Reign of Yima\\npose. Ahura Mazda then says to him, Since\\nthou wilt not consent to be the preacher of my\\nrehgion, then make my world to increase and\\ngrow. Consent to nourish, rule, and watch my\\nworld. This he undertakes, and under the sway\\nof Yima three hundred years pass away, and the\\nearth becomes replenished with flocks and herds\\nand men and dogs and birds, and with red, blaz-\\ning fire, until there was no more room for flocks\\nand herds and men. Yima therefore bores a hole\\nin the earth and with the help of the Earth Spirit\\nmakes the earth one-third larger than it was be-\\nfore. This happens several times. Ahura Mazda\\nthen warns Yima of a series of terrible winters\\nthat are about to come to the earth, in which the\\ntops of the highest mountains will be covered by\\nsnow. Ahura Mazda instructs Yima, therefore,\\nto make an enclosure, a shelter about two miles\\nsquare, and to bring into it the seed of all good\\nplants, animals and men, and of fire, in order to\\npreserve it alive. Minute instructions are given\\nin regard to the construction of this enclosure\\nand great care is taken in selecting the different\\nseeds.* Further it is said that in the reign of\\nYima every duty was fully performed by the aid\\nof the sacred fires.t His feHcity is described in\\nglowing terms. He took away from the demons\\nboth riches and welfare, fatness and flocks. In\\nhis reign food and drink were never failing for\\nliving creatures. Flocks and men were undying\\nwaters never dried up. There was not the cold\\nwind nor the hot wind, neither old age nor death.\\nBut at the end of a thousand years Yima began\\nto yield to the attacks of the tempter and to learn\\nVendidad, ii. f Yast, v.\\n^3 (193)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0231.jp2"}, "232": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nto speak a lie.* Then, in the fine language of the\\nZend Avesta, his glory was seen to fly from him\\nin the shape of a bird. At each new sin another\\nglory departs and, seeing them fly away, Yima,\\nthe good shepherd, trembled and was in sorrow\\nbefore his foes, f He loses his immortality and\\nmeets a terrible death.\\nIn the Bundahesh X another very curious story\\nis told, this time of a first human pair who are\\ncalled Mashya and Mashyana. They are de-\\nscribed as growing together from the stem of\\none plant, at first united from the waist and then\\nseparated much as the Talmud describes the sep-\\naration of Adam and Eve. This change is cu-\\nriously described. They both changed from\\nthe shape of a plant into the shape of a man, and\\nbreath, which is the soul, went spirituallv into\\nthem.\\nAhura Mazda spoke to Mashya and Mash-\\nyana, You are man, you are the ancestry of the\\nworld, and you are created perfect in devotion by\\nme. Perform devotedly the duty of the law,\\nthink good thoughts, speak good words, do good\\ndeeds, and worship no demons. Both of them at\\nfirst thought this, that one of them should please\\nthe other, and the first deed done by them was\\nthis, when they went out they washed themselves\\nthoroughly, and the first words spoken by them\\nwere these, that Ahura Mazda created the water\\nand earth, plants and animals, the stars, moon\\nand sun. But afterward antagonism\\nrushed into their minds and their minds were\\nthoroughly corrupted, and they exclaimed that\\nthe Evil Spirit had created the water and earth,\\nBundahesh, xvii. 5. f Vast, xix. 31-38. X Chap. xv.\\n(194)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0232.jp2"}, "233": {"fulltext": "Mashya and MashyanA\\nplants and animals and through that\\nfalse speech they both became wicked.\\nAnd they had gone thirty days without food,\\ncovered with the clothing of herbage (leaves),\\nand they went forth into the wilderness and came\\nto a white-haired goat and milked it. Then\\nthey became bolder, and having found a sheep,\\nfat and white-jawed, they killed it and made\\nthe first fire and roasted its flesh. And they\\ndropped three handfuls of meat into the fire, and\\nsaid, This is the share of the fire. One piece\\nof the rest they tossed into the sky, and said,\\nThis is the share of the angels. A bird, a vul-\\nture, advanced and carried some of it away from\\nthem as a dog they ate the first meat. And first\\na covering of skins covered them afterward, it is\\nsaid, woven garments were prepared from a cloth\\nwoven in the wilderness, In consequence of all\\nthis, they grew worse and worse, until finally\\nthey advanced against each other and smote and\\ntore their hair and cheeks, and the demons be-\\ncame so bold that they shouted to them out of the\\ndarkness, You are man worship the demon so\\nthat the demon of your maUce may repose.\\nThe particular points of resemblance to Gene-\\nsis in this later story are that man and woman are\\ncreated together by a good God, who laid right-\\neous commands upon them, which they broke by\\nyielding to the temptations of the devil. After\\ntheir creation the breath of life is infused into\\nthem. They are represented immediately after\\ntheir first sin as clothed with leaves or herbs, and\\nlater as clad in skins. In the story of Yima, man s\\nfirst happy and sinless estate is lost by sin and sin\\nbrings death. What is important in both stories\\n(195)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0233.jp2"}, "234": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nis that Yima and Mashya and Mashyana are\\ncreated happy and good by a good God. Moral\\ninjunctions are laid on them which they disobey\\nat the instigation of evil beings, and in conse-\\nquence of this sin and death enter the world and\\ntheir posterity become more and more sinful. Al-\\nthough there are no close or striking verbal co-\\nincidences between these stories and Genesis, it\\nis plain that they are narratives of the same order,\\nin that they both explain the beginning of human\\nsin in a similar way. It is also significant that the\\nPersian creation story contains an account of a\\nworld destruction modified to suit the Persian\\nclimate.*\\nWe pass then to Babylon, in whose literature\\nwe should expect to find more striking resem-\\nblances to our narrative. In this expectation we\\nshall, to a certain extent, be disappointed. We\\nshall see some curious parallels, but anything as\\ncomplete and as overwhelming as the parallel to\\nour account of the Flood we shall not find. It\\ndoes not follow, however, because no very com-\\nplete parallel is in our hands now that one will\\nnever be discovered. Before these chapters are\\nfinished, the very thing that scholars are looking\\nfor may be found. Of the innumerable inscrip-\\ntions buried in the cities of Babylonia and As-\\nsyria only a few thousand have been recovered,\\nand not all of those have been deciphered. We\\nhave not even a detailed account of the Creation\\nof man, although it is certain that such an ac-\\ncount must have existed, so we need not despair\\nif we have not yet a satisfactory description of the\\nIt is not impossible that the Bundahesh was influenced by\\nGenesis.\\n(^96)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0234.jp2"}, "235": {"fulltext": "Babylonian Seal\\nFall of man. Perhaps no such description ever\\nexisted, though in the face of the suggestive hints\\nwe have already in our hands it is hard to believe\\nthat. I will begin what I have to say with a\\nfew words on the two old seals, drawings of which\\nwill be found on pp. 198 and 202. The first draw-\\ning represents an early Babylonian seal now in\\nthe British Museum and first made public, so far\\nas I know, by George Smith in his Chaldean\\nAccount of Genesis. This is probably the most\\nfamous of all the seals taken from Babylonia, and\\na great deal has been written about it. Although\\nits allusion to a story of a Fall is now generally\\ndoubted by Assyriologists, I cannot forbear to\\nstate the argument. When this seal was first\\npublished by Mr. Smith in 1875, he expected con-\\nfidently that the explanatory text would soon be\\ndiscovered. More than twenty-five years have\\nelapsed and still it has not come to light, in con-\\nsequence of which scholars are beginning to be\\nsceptical as to whether this seal was intended to\\nrepresent the Fall at all. I ought to add, how-\\never, that no other satisfactory explanation of the\\nseal has yet been given.\\nLet us look at it now a little more carefully.\\nOn either side of a tree which, from the angle of\\nits branches, the shape of the leaves, and the po-\\nsition of the fruit under the leaves, appears to be\\na palm are seated two figures. One of these\\nseems to be a man and the other a woman. Each\\nis stretching out one hand toward the tree as if\\nto take the fruit. Behind the figure on the left,\\nwhich is supposed to be the woman, is the undu-\\nlating form of a serpent standing erect on its\\ntail in an impossible attitude, with its head not\\n(197)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0235.jp2"}, "236": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nfar from the woman s ear. This is indeed strik-\\ningly suggestive of the story of the Fall. We\\nhave here the tree as the central object on which\\nall attention is fixed, the man, and the woman\\ninto whose ear the serpent seems to be whisper-\\ning his invitation to put forth her hand and eat.\\nFrom this many scholars have inferred that a\\nstory of the Fall, or at least an account of the\\neating of sacred fruit by a man and a woman\\nat the suggestion of a serpent, existed in Baby-\\nTHE SERPENT AND THE TREE\\nIonian literature. Moreover, this is not the\\nonly picture of this kind whose literary coun-\\nterpart has been discovered. We have a picture\\nof the Babylonian Noah in his ark, and we have\\nthe history of the Flood and the construction of\\nthe ark. We have many pictures of Izdubar\\nstrangling a lion or slaying a bull, and we have an\\naccount in literature of these adventures. It\\ntherefore seemed not unreasonable to suppose\\nthat this picture of the two figures and the ser-\\npent beside the sacred tree had a literary equiva-\\nO98)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0236.jp2"}, "237": {"fulltext": "Babylonian Seal\\nlent in a story of temptation somewhat like our\\nown.\\nAgainst this it is urged\\n1. That no such story has as yet been found,\\nnor have we yet found any account of the crea-\\ntion of the first man and woman.\\n2. That it is not certain that these figures rep-\\nresent a man and a woman; they may both be\\nmen.\\n3. That if this picture represents a story of\\ntemptation to eat a sacred fruit, in some respects\\nit is not the same story as ours. Instead of repre-\\nsenting our first parents in a condition of prim-\\nitive nudity, this picture seems to point to a\\nperiod of considerable culture. The two figures\\nare clothed from head to foot in rather elaborate\\ndresses. They have hats on, or at least head or-\\nnaments. They are seated on benches.\\n4. In any case the story is not exactly the same,\\nfor the figure we may call Adam is stretching his\\nhand to the tree just as Eve is doing, and is not\\nrepresented as receiving the fruit from her.\\n5. Lastly, the undulating figure on the left\\ncan only by courtesy be called a serpent. It may\\nbe a mere line of demarcation.\\nSeveral of these objections are well taken, but\\nin reply to others I may suggest the following\\nI. Although there is nothing in the two figures\\nthat absolutely determines their sex, yet the fig-\\nure to the right, in the original, appears to be\\nslightly larger than the other, and a difference of\\nsex may be hinted at in the different head dresses.\\nUnder a strong glass the lines of the female fig-\\nure are quite plain. The man wears the mascu-\\nline symbol of ox horns, such as we often see on\\n(199)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0237.jp2"}, "238": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nGilgamesh, and the figure we suppose to be the\\nwoman wears a kind of round hat which we often\\nfind on men and also on women.*\\n2. It is true the figures are not nude, and the\\nlong garments, as well as the benches, imply a\\ncertain degree of culture; but at the same time\\nI call attention to the fact that the Babylonians\\nwere in the habit of referring their civilization\\nback to the beginning of the world. They\\nseem to have preserved no recollection of man s\\npristine savagery. In Pinches fragment, which\\nattempts to depict the condition of things be-\\nfore Creation, we read, No brick was laid nor\\nany brick edifice reared, no house erected, no\\ncity built. They even went so far as to ascribe\\nthe art of writing to the very beginning of the\\nworld. In a description of chaos in the Cutha\\ntablet it is said, On a memorial tablet none\\nwrote, none explained, for bodies and produce\\nwere not brought forth upon the earth. If\\nthe Babylonians ascribed the ability to write and\\nto build brick houses to the first man, there is no\\nreason why they should not have conceived him\\nas wearing clothes, for they did not regard him as\\nsavage, but as civilized. I would also say in reply\\nto Budde s criticism,t that nakedness and then\\nclothing are introduced into Genesis with a pur-\\npose which no one would expect *to find in a\\nBabylonian story.\\n3. The very attitude of repose represented by\\nthe seated figures indicates reflection. Neither\\ndoes it seem to me that the fact that both the\\nfigures are stretching their hands toward the\\nE.g-., Ishtar Maspero Dawn of Civilization.\\nUrgeschichte, p. 78.\\n(200)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0238.jp2"}, "239": {"fulltext": "Boscawen s Suggestion\\nfruit indicates necessarily that the conception\\nwas wholly unhke our own. On the contrary, the\\nmost suspicious circumstance seems to me to be\\nthat it suggests a story too similar to the story of\\nGenesis. How else could a picture which must\\nshow all in one moment have indicated that both\\nwere attracted to the fruit and tempted? The\\nfact remains that the serpent is behind her whom\\nwe regard as the woman. As to the serpent,\\nthe undulating line, although roughly drawn, cer-\\ntainly suggests this animal (it is quite as much\\nlike a serpent as the tree is like a tree) and we\\nmay even see in the upright and impossible atti-\\ntude a parallel to our story that before the curse\\nthe serpent stood erect and carried his head in\\nthe air.\\n4. Boscawen even thinks he has discovered\\nthe literary account of the Fall in the third tablet\\nof the Creation series, where, among the evil\\ndeeds of Tiamat, occurs the following\\nThe great gods, all of them determiners of fate,\\nThey entered, and deathlike, the god Sar filled.\\nIn sin one with the other in compact joins.\\nThe command was established in the garden of the god,\\nThe Asnan [fruit] they ate, they broke in two.\\nIts stalk they destroyed, the sweet juice which injures\\nthe body.\\nGreat is their sin, themselves they exalted.\\nTo Merodach their redeemer he appointed their fate.\\nIn absence of corroboration by other Assyriol-\\nogists, however, I am not disposed to attach\\nmuch importance to this story, which seems to\\nrecount an attack on a sacred tree rather than\\na story of the Fall. We will therefore turn to the\\nThe Bible and the Monuments, p. 89.\\n(201)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0239.jp2"}, "240": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nother cylinder, which plainly represents a sacred\\ntree guarded by genii. The sacred tree is one of\\nthe commonest objects of Assyrian art. Some-\\ntimes it is depicted as a palm, sometimes as a\\ncypress, and again in a purely conventional form,\\nlike an English Maypole. It is usually repre-\\nsented as guarded by mythical figures hke the\\ntwo genii of this illustration. Sometimes these\\nfigures yield to the figures of winged men, or,\\nagain, the form of the great god Asshur is dis-\\nGENII AND THE TREE\\nplayed above the tree. In the absence of definite\\nproof it would be rash to associate any of these\\nrepresentations with the Tree of Life or the Tree\\nof Knowledge. The Babylonians, however, as we\\nshall see, had the conception of the Tree of Life,\\nand a tree guarded by supernatural beings does\\ncorrespond in a general way to the Tree of Life\\nguarded by the Cherubim. Before considering\\nthe Tree of Life in Babylonian literature, I wish\\nto call your attention to the wide diffusion of\\nbelief in such a tree in other sacred literatures.\\n(202)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0240.jp2"}, "241": {"fulltext": "Tree of Life among the Nations\\nIn fact, the conception is so common and its lit-\\nerature so immense that the great difficulty is to\\nknow what to mention and what to leave out. I\\nshall therefore exclude altogether such trees as\\nwere only regarded as sacred and as objects of\\nadoration, and confine myself exclusively to the\\ntree whose fruit or whose juice was believed to be\\nGENII AND THE TREE\\ncapable of bestowing immortality. The anti-\\nquity of this belief is certainly very great. It is\\nfound not onlyamong thevarious branches of the\\nIndo-Germanic group among the Hindus, the\\nPersians, Greeks, and Germans but also among\\nthe Semitic peoples. The idea, I believe, grew\\nup in some such way as this. Among all poly-\\ntheistic nations we find the melancholy thought\\nof the old age and decay of the gods. Each god s\\n(203)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0241.jp2"}, "242": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\npersonality is small and weak in the presence\\nof the boundless forces of Nature, and the\\nthought naturally arises that in the end they will\\noverwhelm him. And that is just what hap-\\npens. Men look back and see that the gods\\nworshipped in ancient times are now either\\nwholly forgotten or have sunk to an inferior posi-\\ntion; they are seldom worshipped and they re-\\nceive few gifts to keep them aUve and strong.\\nSo the conviction arises that the gods, Uke men,\\nare in danger of dying, and that they require food\\nand drink to sustain them in life. Closely con-\\nnected with this conception of the gods is the fact\\nthat on earth certain trees or plants yield a fruit\\nor a juice which has the strangest effect upon\\nmen, arousing in them in a mysterious manner\\necstasy and new strength, and supplying them\\nwith new thoughts and feelings. By men totally\\nignorant of physiology, these mysterious pheno-\\nmena of intoxication are believed to come from\\nthe gods, and the plant that invariably produces\\nthis condition is regarded as a divine plant.\\nEither by partaking of the libations men offer on\\nearth, or because they possess a heavenly plant\\ncorresponding to this earthly one, the gods are\\nable to retain their immortality.\\nAmong the Hindus the plant that yielded their\\nfavorite beverage was the Soma plant, therefore\\nit was regarded as the plant of immortality. But\\nit is easy to see in the minds of an imaginative\\npeople like the Hindus to what a variety of ob-\\njects this idea is capable of being applied. The\\nearth sometimes becomes parched, the plants and\\nflowers wither. Then the refreshing and fertiliz-\\ning rain falls and the earth is green and living\\n(204)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0242.jp2"}, "243": {"fulltext": "The Soma Plant\\nagain. The rain is the Soma plant brewed by\\nthe cloud gods, and by it the earth retains her\\nimmortality. The moon waxes and wanes, some-\\ntimes it disappears altogether. It is evidently\\nworn out and exhausted. It requires a fresh\\nsupply of this liquor of immortality and then it\\nwill grow young again. By such a train of\\nthought, I believe, is the Soma plant in the\\nRig Veda so closely connected with rain and\\nthe moon. We can see plainly that one draught\\nof this divine juice is not enough. Its effects\\npass away like the effects of alcohol. The gods\\nmust constantly drink or eat to keep their eter-\\nnal youth. In the Germanic myth, after Loki\\nhas carried away Iduna and her apples to the\\nabode of the giants, the other gods soon become\\ngray-headed and old and lose all their vigor.\\nThere is no commoner idea in the Rig Veda\\nthan that of the virtue of the Soma plant, to\\nwhich, as to a divine object, innumerable prayers\\nare offered, whose fundamental thought is the\\ndesire for life and immortality.\\nThe Soma streams, the begetter of thoughts, the begetter\\nof heaven and earth, the begetter of Agni and the Sun.*\\nO Soma, in thy power is it that we live and do not die. f\\nWe drank Soma, we became immortal. :j:\\nAmong the Persians we encounter the same\\nword and the same idea in the Haoma plant, only\\nthe idea is less expanded because Ahura Mazda\\nhas risen out of the sphere of natural deities and\\nis self-existent and self-sustaining. Yet in the\\nZend Avesta the worship is centred around the\\nSama Veda, i. 614, 5. f Rig Veda, i. 91, 92.\\nt Rig Veda, i. 8, 48.\\n(205)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0243.jp2"}, "244": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nHaoma plant. By its virtues, in Yima s reign of\\na thousand years, sickness and death were un-\\nknown. It destroys the demons, and at the\\nresurrection will confer immortality on be-\\nlievers.*\\nThe Greeks possessed an entirely similar con-\\nception in their nectar and ambrosia. The am-\\nbrosia conceived as immortal food is new, and in\\nthe Iliad I believe Homer never speaks of the\\ngods as eating ambrosia, but only as drinking\\nnectar.f On this divine food the gods feast\\nevery day, and thereby preserve their immortal\\nyouth. By its healing power Aphrodite is re-\\nstored after she has been wounded by Diomede\\nHector is healed at the command of Zeus Achil-\\nles is secretly nourished when in sorrow he re-\\nfuses to eat and by it Calypso offered to confer\\nimmortality on Odysseus. It is true that the gods\\nof Greece do not seem so dependent on this life-\\ngiving food as the grosser Germanic deities. Per-\\nhaps one draught was able to confer immortality\\notherwise poor Prometheus, chained to the rock\\nand tormented, would have been able to die.\\nIn Greek mythology, alongside the nectar and\\nambrosia are the golden apples of the Hesperi-\\ndes. On an island of the ocean to which no ship\\ncan penetrate, where Zeus and Hera celebrated\\ntheir nuptials, this fruit grows in a garden of the\\ngods, guarded by the dragon Ladon and the Hes-\\nperides. He who eats one of these apples attains\\neternal youth.\\nBoth the Tree of Life and the serpent were\\nWindischmann s Zoroast. Studien, 170 and 244. See\\nYast, ix. 17.\\nt A., 585, 598-\\n(206)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0244.jp2"}, "245": {"fulltext": "Tree of Life in Egypt\\nfamiliar mythical figures in Egypt, where they\\nwere very frequently associated. Among the\\ntrees planted in the temple precincts none was\\nmore sacred than the species called by Greek\\nwriters Persea (Mimusops Schimperi). Belief\\nin the sanctity of this tree passed from the old\\nEgyptian religion into Christianity. It was said\\nthat during the flight into Egypt, as the holy\\nfamily were seated beneath the shade of the Per-\\nsea, this good tree bowed its branches in adora-\\ntion of the Saviour. Allusions to this legend are\\nstill to be found in hymns ancient and modern.\\nTo vex Christian believers, Julian the Apostate is\\nsaid to have ordered the destruction of this tree,\\nin consequence of which it has wholly disap-\\npeared from the soil of Egypt, although Brugsch\\nasserts it is still to be met with in southern\\nArabia. On account of its long life the Persea\\nwas regarded as a symbol of perennial strength\\nand immortality. The Pharaohs are frequently\\nrepresented as seated beneath its shadow. The\\nheavenly overseers of the lapse of time carry the\\nnames of the princes to the leaves of the tree, and\\npromise the fortunate monarchs eternal endur-\\nance of name and memory.\\nThe Arabian Mohammedans still preserve a\\ntradition of the Tree of Life. They say that in\\nthe leaves of this tree Allah has recorded the fate\\nand the length of life of every man from birth to\\nthe grave. When the leaf withers, the end of\\nman s existence is at hand and when his leaf of\\nthe Tree of Life falls, he dies.*\\nThese two statements are made on the authority of Brugsch\\nBey, Steinschrift und Bibelwort, who, as usual, gives no\\nsources.\\n(207)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0245.jp2"}, "246": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nTo complete this study I will merely add a few\\nwords on the Germanic and Norse mythologies.\\nAs we have seen, the mortality of the gods, which\\nis never prominent in Greek mythology, often\\nobtrudes itself in the old Germanic myths. Bal-\\nder is killed, Odin s downfall is described, Thor\\nfalls dead on the earth.* These gods, Hke all\\nthe others, owe what immortality they possess\\nto their food, or rather to their drink, for we are\\ntold that Odin required no food and drank only\\nwine (the nectar of the Greeks, the Soma of the\\nHindus). Beside this nectar are the golden\\napples of Iduna, by eating which the aging gods\\nbecome young again. One day the crafty Loki\\nlured Iduna out of Asgard into a wood, pre-\\ntending that he had found apples far finer than\\nhers, and advising her to bring her own along\\nto compare them with his. Then came the giant\\nThiassi in the form of an eagle, who seized Iduna\\nand her apples and flew away with her to his\\nhome in Thrymheim. The gods soon became\\ngray-haired and old, and would have died had\\nshe not returned.\\nIn all these myths we find a more or less perfect\\ncounterpart of the Tree of Life, that is to say, a\\nplant or a tree whose fruit, partaken of in a purely\\nphysical way, is able to bestow immortality. The\\nmost striking difference between these mythical\\nfruits (the Greek excepted) and the Tree of Life\\nin Genesis is that they must be partaken of again\\nand again, while apparently to eat but once of\\nour tree is sufficient to Hve forever. Another\\neven greater difference may seem to be that the\\nSoma plant, the nectar and ambrosia, give Hfe not\\nGrimm, Deutsche MythoL, p. 265.\\n(208)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0246.jp2"}, "247": {"fulltext": "Tree of Life not for Man.\\nonly to men, but also to the gods. Nothing of\\nthis sort is related in Genesis, and at the time\\nthat book was written it would have been a re-\\npugnant thought. Jehovah, the true god, is in\\nno danger of dying. But in the old tradition\\nfrom which the Tree of Life was probably taken,\\nthe case may have been different. At all events,\\nthat tree was not made for man to eat, and unless\\nits Hfe-giving fruits were for God, or at least for\\nthose divine spirits to which Jahveh alludes in\\nthe phrase one of us, it had no purpose what-\\never.\\n(209)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0247.jp2"}, "248": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Eleven:\\nEden in the Mythology of the Nations Continued\\nBEFORE we continue our attempt to estab-\\nlish some points of connection between\\nthe second and third chapters of Genesis and the\\nliterature of Babylon, there are a few representa-\\ntions in those chapters which ought to be men-\\ntioned. We have seen that a tree or plant whose\\nfruit or whose juice bestows immortality is found\\nin almost every branch of the Indo-Germanic\\nfamily. Among the Babylonians a sacred tree\\nguarded by supernatural beings is a very com-\\nmon symbol in art. The most ancient name of\\nBabylon in the old Accadian language (Tin-tir-\\nki) is said to signify the place of the Tree of\\nLife. We are therefore justified in believing\\nthat in the Tree of Life we have an old and al-\\nmost universal symbol of ethnical mythology.\\nWith the Tree of the Knowledge of good and\\nevil it is different. We have, it is true, prophetic\\ntrees, and even speaking trees, like the oaks of\\nDodona, enough and to spare. One of the com-\\nmonest religious beliefs of antiquity was that it\\nwas possible to learn the will of the gods and to\\nanticipate future events by the prophetic rustling\\nand agitation of the leaves of a tree.t Among the\\nLenormant, Begin, of Hist., p. 85.\\nf Any one who wishes to investigate this subject will find a\\n(210)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0248.jp2"}, "249": {"fulltext": "Sacred Trees\\nHebrews of the Old Testament we find a good\\nmany examples of the same superstition. We\\nread in Judges of the Oak of Diviners near\\nShechem. The angel of the Lord appeared to\\nGideon under the oak of Ophra. Deborah dwelt\\nunder a palm tree afterward called by her name,\\nbetween Ramah and Bethel, where she was accus-\\ntomed to deliver her judgments. Rebecca s\\nnurse was buried under an oak at Bethel, which\\nfrom that circumstance was called the oak of\\nmourning, t Saul is repeatedly mentioned as sit-\\nting under a tree (probably in judgment).:};\\nDavid, on the eve of an important battle with\\nthe Philistines, consulted the mulberry trees\\nnear Geba, and when he heard a going in the\\ntops, he divined that Jahveh had gone out be-\\nfore him to battle, and accordingly joined\\nforces.\u00c2\u00a7 Somewhat of the same order of ideas\\nis the burning bush, in which the Angel of\\nJahveh revealed himself to Moses, and we might\\neasily multiply these examples. But in none of\\nthem should we find anything really resembling\\nthe Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. The\\nadvantage to be obtained from that tree is ob-\\ntained by eating its fruit, not by sitting under it,\\nnor by observing the motion of its leaves, and\\nthe knowledge it communicates is not the per-\\nception of the presence of the Deity, nor the yes\\nor no of an oracle in answer to some particular\\nworld of material in Fergusson s classical Tree and Serpent\\nWorship (London, 1868), or in Gubernati s Mythology of\\nPlants.\\nix. 37. Wrongly translated Plain of Meonenim.\\nf Gen. XXXV. 8.\\ni I Sam. xiv. 2 and xxii. 6,\\n2 Sam. V. 24. See Baudissin s Studien, Heilige Baume.\\n(211)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0249.jp2"}, "250": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nquestion, but the permanent illumination of the\\nmind in regard to moral truth, a complete and\\nradical change in the nature of the man who eats.\\nOf that, so far as I know, there is not a trace\\neither in any other part of the Old Testament or\\nin pagan literature. At present, therefore, we\\nare at liberty to regard it as the original creation\\nof our writer.\\nI have already said something on the Serpent\\nof Genesis. It remains only to add a few words\\nby way of comparison. This is another of those\\nfigures whose counterpart exists in almost every\\nliterature. The fact that this is true of so many\\nof the symbolic images in the early chapters of\\nGenesis is in itself enough to convince us that we\\nare dealing here with a literature unlike most of\\nthe Old Testament. We are confronted with\\nideas on which a large part of humanity has\\nmeditated, and it is always important to know\\nwhat humanity has thought on any subject.\\nThe serpent as a mythical animal, symbolical\\nof mystery, wisdom, good and evil, exists in most\\nof the ancient literatures of the world. The ra-\\npidity of his movements, the brilliancy of his\\nsparkling eye, his vibrating, forked tongue, his\\npower of disappearing and his fatal bite have\\nset him apart from the rest of the animal world,\\nand have caused him to be regarded as a satanic\\nor as a divine animal. Even in the Old Testa-\\nment he is not always regarded as injurious; his\\nvenomous character is not the only one pre-\\nsented. Thebrazen serpent erected byMoseswas\\nconsidered a sacred talisman against snake bites,\\nand to it, or to a similar representation, the people\\nof Jerusalem continued for a long time to burn\\n(212)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0250.jp2"}, "251": {"fulltext": "The Serpent in Assyria\\nincense until it was destroyed along with other\\nimages by Hezekiah.* The first sign that Moses\\nand Aaron showed Pharaoh was to throw down\\nAaron s magical rod, which instantly became a\\nlive serpent. t The Egyptian sorcerers, however,\\ndid the same thing. Also, when Jahveh com-\\nmanded Moses to throw his rod on the ground it\\nbecame a serpent, and Moses fled from before\\nit. But when, at Jahveh s command, Moses\\nseized it by the tail, it immediately became a stick\\nagain.:]: Still, on the whole, the serpent is re-\\ngarded in the Old Testament as a type of a sinis-\\nter and injurious influence.\\nAmong the Assyrians the serpent is repre-\\nsented usually in the same light. One species of\\nserpent, at least, was called ai-ub-ilu (the foe\\nof God), whether on account of a mythological\\nstory connected with it, or because its poison was\\nconsidered dangerous even to the gods, we do\\nnot know. We have already spoken of the sea-\\nmonster, Tiamat, but there is no reason to asso-\\nciate her with the serpent of Genesis. She be-\\nlongs to an entirely different world of ideas.\\nThe serpent pictured on page 198 as erect behind\\nthe woman, would enlighten us more if we only\\nknew its history. Symbols of serpents supposed\\nto be sacred are often found carved on stones or\\neven on cylinders.\\nThe story of Bel and the Dragon occurs in the\\nApocrypha of the Old Testament. After Daniel\\nhas proved to King Cyrus that the food laid be-\\nfore the god Bel is secretly carried away at night\\nby the priests and their wives through a trap-\\n2 Kings, xviii. 4. f Exod. vH. 10-12. Exod. iv. 2-4.\\nFrd. Delitzsch, Assyr. Studien, i. 69 and 87.\\n(213)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0251.jp2"}, "252": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ndoor, Cyrus reminds Daniel that all the gods\\nworshipped in Babylon are not insensible beings.\\nThey have there a great dragon or snake to\\nwhich divine honor is paid. Wilt thou also say\\nthat this is brass? Cyrus is represented as tri-\\numphantly asking Daniel. Lo, he eateth and\\ndrinketh. He is a living god, therefore worship\\nhim. This naif argument would have em-\\nbarrassed some men. Daniel, however, disposes\\nof it by killing the serpent, which he accom-\\nplishes by forcing a lump of pitch, fat and hair\\ndown his throat. For this deed Daniel is thrown\\ninto the lions den, where he remains six days,\\nuntil the prophet Habakkuk is carried by an\\nangel through the air by the hair of his head,*\\nand cries, O Daniel, Daniel, take the dinner\\nGod has sent thee. Unfortunately, every\\nfeature of this romance is unhistorical and no\\nsafe conclusion can be drawn from it.\\nAmong the Greeks the serpent was regarded\\nas a sacred object, closely associated with several\\nof the gods. In the temple of Athene in Athens,\\nas late as the Persian wars tame serpents were\\nkept as guardians of the temple they were sup-\\nported at the public expense and fed regularly\\non honey cakes. Athene is frequently repre-\\nsented as carrying a staff round which serpents\\nare coiled. Hermes is depicted in the same way.\\nAs a rule, the serpent was considered a good ani-\\nmal by the Greeks, most of whose serpents were\\nharmless. It is associated with ^sculapius in\\nthe art of healing and with Ceres as a child of the\\nearth and protector of the soil, although some-\\ntimes, as in the serpents that tried to strangle\\nSee Creuzer s Symbolik, art. Schlange.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0252.jp2"}, "253": {"fulltext": "The Serpent in Phcenicia\\nHercules, and the serpents sent to slay Laocoon,\\nits dangerous character appears.\\nIn regard to the position of the serpent among\\nthe Phoenicians, we have an extremely interest-\\ning account in the fragments of Sanchoniathon,\\npreserved by Philo of Biblus\\nTaautos [probably the old Egyptian god Thoth] first re-\\ngarded the nature of the dragon and the serpent as some-\\nwhat divine, in which he was followed by the Egyptians\\nand Babylonians. He taught that this animal is the most\\nspirited of all reptiles and that it has a fiery nature, inas-\\nmuch as it displays incredible swiftness, moving by its\\nspirit alone, without hands or feet or any of those organs\\nb: which other animals effect their motion. And as it\\ngoes it assumes a variety of forms, moving in spirals and\\ndarting forward as swiftly as it pleases. It is moreover\\nlong-lived, and is capable not only of laying its old age\\noiT and assuming a second youth, but of receiving at the\\nsame time an increase of size and strength. And when it\\nhas fulfilled the appointed time of its existence it consumes\\nitself, as Taautos has laid down in his sacred books, on\\nwhich account this animal is introduced in the sacred rites\\nand mysteries. This animal does not die a natural\\ndeath except when it is struck a severe blow. The\\nPhoenicians call it the good demon; the Egyptians,\\nKneph, and represent it as having the head of a hawk\\nas it has the strength of a hawk. In allegorical manner\\nEpius says the following: The first among all divine be-\\nings is the serpent in form of a hawk, a beautiful animal;\\nwhen it looks up it fills the whole ante-mundane world\\nwith light, when it closes its eyes darkness falls.\\nI will not attempt to interpret all this, but it\\nappears that the Phoenicians and the Greeks both\\nborrowed their serpent worship from Egypt,\\nwhere the cult was very old. In Egypt the ser-\\npent w^as especially sacred. It belonged to all\\nthe gods. Wherever a large serpent was found,\\npeople brought it bread, cakes, and fruit, and\\nSee Cory s Fragments, 17 and 18, and Baudissin, op. citat.,\\np. 268.\\n(215)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0253.jp2"}, "254": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthought that they could call down the blessing of\\nheaven upon their fields by gorging the snake\\nwith offerings. On the east wall of the sanc-\\ntuary of the goddess Hathor of Tentyra this in-\\nscription still stands The sun which endures\\nfrom the beginning, mounts Hke a falcon from out\\nof the middle of its lotus bud. The doors of its\\nleaves open in sapphire radiance, so it divides the\\nnight from the day. Thou risest as the holy ser-\\npent, creating and illuminating the ascent in thy\\nglorious form in the bark of the rising sun. t\\nThe serpent, though frequently regarded in\\nEgypt as a good animal, was by no means always\\nso regarded. On the contrary, he is constantly\\ndescribed in the inscriptions, and depicted on the\\nmonuments as the symbol of evil and of darkness\\nwho strives to extinguish the light of the physical\\nand moral world. In the Book of the Dead this\\nstruggle is depicted in a vignette which repre-\\nsents an armed cat (symbol of light) contending\\nwith a serpent (the symbol of darkness). In this\\nconnection the serpent is also constantly depicted\\nwith the Tree of Life. An old inscription says\\nthat a Persea (the sacred tree) arose in emerald\\nleafage in the east of the world, at the place where\\nthe sun celebrates his daily ascent, on the spot\\nwhere the daily battle takes place between light\\nand darkness, good and evil. In general we\\nmay say that these two inseparable figures the\\nTree and the Serpent represent the eternal\\nstruggle of life and death. The Book of the\\nMaspero, Dawn of Civilization, p. 121.\\nf Brugsch, Religion und Mythologie der Alten Aegypter,\\np. 103.\\nX See Brugsch, Steinschrift und Bibelwort, ch. 3.\\n(216)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0254.jp2"}, "255": {"fulltext": "The Serpent in Persia\\nDead promises the eternal fate of the serpent in\\nthe night of the battle and in the destruction of\\nevil-doers, and in the day of the annihilation of\\nthe enemies of the Almighty.\\nAmong all these nations the serpent is re-\\ngarded as a sacred and often as a good being.\\nOnly among the Persians, in the sacred books of\\nZoroaster s religion, is the serpent always evil.\\nHe is there the creature of Ahriman, the de-\\nstroyer. His sole business is to injure the good\\ncreatures of Ahura Mazda. It is as great a merit\\nto kill a serpent as to perform the highest sacri-\\nfice. In the Bundahesh we read that when Ahri-\\nman was attacking the luminaries of heaven with\\nmalicious intent, he stood upon one-third of the\\ninside of the sky and sprang like a snake out of\\nthe sky down to the earth. He made the world\\ndark at midday, and noxious creatures, biting\\nand venomous, such as the snake, scorpion, frog\\nand lizard, were diffused by him over the earth, f\\nEvery one of the faithful was provided with a\\nsnake-killer, consisting of a stick with a\\nleather thong at the end. Finally, at the last\\njudgment, the serpent is thrown into hell and\\nburned up amid masses of molten metals whose\\nheat is so intense that all evil fumes are con-\\nsumed, and hell, having become quite pure, forms\\npart of the new world of the redeemed.^\\nFortunately we have not now to interpret the\\nmeaning of all these myths connected with the\\nserpent. They spring from two sources, either\\nfrom the uncanny, mysterious nature of the ser-\\npent, as Philo Biblus tells us, or from a fanciful\\ncomparison of the serpent with the clouds and\\niii. lo and 15. f Bund, xxviii. 22. X Ibid. xxx. 31 and 32.\\n(217)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0255.jp2"}, "256": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nother natural phenomena. As the latter concep-\\ntion has nothing to do with Genesis, I have pur-\\nposely omitted stories of this sort. It is true\\nthat none of these myths tallies very closely with\\nour narrative. The nearest relative of our ser-\\npent is the tempting serpent of Ahriman, who\\novercame the fair shepherd Yima. But the short\\naccount here given is sufficient to enable us to\\nrealize how great a part the serpent played in the\\nmythology of the nations. I turn next to the\\nconceptions of the Cherubim and the Flaming\\nSword.\\nFrom the manner in which the cherubim are\\nintroduced, without a word of explanation or de-\\nscription, it is plain that these objects, so mys-\\nterious to us, were very familiar to the audience\\nfor whom the Jehovist wrote. We are therefore\\nentitled to regard them as belonging to that large\\ncompany of mythical beings, brute and human, of\\nwhich ancient art has preserved innumerable ex-\\namples. Unfortunately, our rudimentary ar-\\nchaeology can supply us with no authentic ex-\\nample from the soil of Palestine.* Perhaps no\\nexample exists. The Hebrews lack of artistic\\nskill and the Prophets well-known aversion to\\nrepresentations even of animal life make it prob-\\nable that objects of plastic art were at no time nu-\\nmerous in Israel. Even the cherubim of Solo-\\nmon s temple, we are expressly informed, were\\nexecuted in wood. It is true that among the metal\\ncastings made by Hiram of Tyre for Solomon,\\nA sculptured animal form surmounted by a human head of\\nAssyrian type was discovered by M. Clermont-Ganneau in a\\nstone quarry near Jerusalem (see Rev. Grit., Mai i6, 1892).\\nWhether this composite figure was intended for a cherub is very\\ndoubtful.\\n(218)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0256.jp2"}, "257": {"fulltext": "The Cherub in the Psalms\\nwe read of cherubim on the base of the molten\\nsea. From their association in this piece of orna-\\nmentation with Hons and oxen,* it would appear\\nthat the cherubim possessed animal form dis-\\ntinguishable from these familiar figures. We\\nhave a general description of the cherubim\\nthat guarded the Holy of Holies, which informs\\nus that they possessed wings, but which is not\\nsufficiently exact to enable us to form a mental\\npicture of their appearance.\\nLacking any representation in art, we can only\\nturn to the mythical interpretations of literature.\\nA fine and vivid description of a cherub is given\\nin the eighteenth Psalm\\nHe bowed the heavens and came down,\\nClouds of darkness beneath His feet.\\nHe rode on the cherub and flew,\\nOn the wings of the wind He swooped down,\\nIn darkness He wrapt Himself,\\nAbout Him as His covert.\\nAt the brightness before Him clouds vanished,\\nLo! hailstones and coals of fire.f\\nIn this wonderful description the cherub on\\nwhich Jahveh flies is plainly a thunder cloud con-\\nceived as a chariot. The allusion is scarcely\\nveiled. The one hundred and fourth Psalm says\\neven less ambiguously\\nThou makest clouds Thy chariot,\\nThou ridest on the wings of the wind.\\nThou makest winds Thy messengers,\\nAnd flames of fire Thy servants. X\\nIn Ezekiel s vision of the cherubim and the\\nwheels the function of the cherubim as the\\nI Kings, vii. 29. X Ps. civ. 3, 4.\\nf Ps. xviii. 9-12. Ezek. i.\\n(219)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0257.jp2"}, "258": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwinged bearers of God is even more apparent.\\nThis, then, is one of the duties the cherubim were\\nsupposed to perform. They are winged beings\\nwho carry Jahveh in rapid flight through the air,\\nand in this capacity they are intimately associated\\nwith storm clouds and with the phenomena of\\nthunder and lightning.\\nThe second function of the cherubim is to\\nwatch and protect sacred places. This phase of\\ntheir being is plainly brought out in our story of\\nGenesis and by the presence of the cherubim in\\nthe Holy of Holies, where they guarded Jeho-\\nvah s ark. Perhaps the most striking descrip-\\ntion of the cherubim in this capacity is that of the\\nProphet Ezekiel. Some of Ezekiel s earlier\\nvisions of the cherubim are exceedingly compli-\\ncated and technical and appear to have been sug-\\ngested to him by the architecture of Babylon,\\nwhere he lived for many years. He gives us a\\nhint that his many-headed, composite beings are\\nnot the old Israelitish cherubim when he ad-\\nmits that he did not know they were cherubim\\nuntil he heard them called so by God. Those\\nmechanically constructed figures never arose\\nfrom the spontaneous imagination of the people\\nand do not represent the old traditional views.\\nIn his twenty-eighth chapter, however, Ezekiel\\npresents to us another far more living form.\\nIt is the old Hebrew cherub in his original\\nhabitat. The passage is also interesting as\\ncontaining another genuine Hebrew tradition of\\nParadise which differs in many respects from the\\nEden of Genesis. Ezekiel is addressing the King\\nof Tyre. He describes him as another Adam in\\nChap. X 2, 20.\\n(220)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0258.jp2"}, "259": {"fulltext": "The Paradise of Ezekiel\\nan even more mythical terrestrial Paradise, until,\\nin consequence of his pride, he is driven out by\\nthe cherub. Unfortunately the Hebrew text is\\nquite corrupt.\\nIn Eden, the garden of God, thou wast; of every precious\\nstone was thine adornment ruby, topaz and jasper, tar-\\nshish stone, onyx and beryl, sapphire, carbuncle and emer-\\nald; of gold was the work of thy [some ornament]. On\\nthe day when thou wast created, I placed thee with the\\ncherub on the sacred mountain of God, and thou\\ndidst walk amid the fiery stones. Perfect thou wast in thy\\nways from the day when thou wert created till iniquity was\\nfound in thee. Through the greatness of thy traffic thou\\nwert filled with violence and didst sin; so I cast thee out as\\nprofane from the mountain of God, and the cherub\\nexpelled thee from amid the fiery stones.*\\nWe have here evidently an independent He-\\nbrew translation of the Creation and the Fall of\\nman. In this narrative, as in Genesis, a favored\\nman is placed at his creation in the garden of God,\\nbut when in pride and disobedience he revolts\\nagainst God, he is cast out with the cooperation\\nof the cherub, who is represented as the guardian\\nof the place. In several of its features, e. g., the\\ndescription of Paradise as on the sacred mountain\\nof God, the wonderful account of the precious\\nstones and the fiery stones, and the more active\\npart taken by the cherub in the e:j^pulsion of\\nman, Ezekiel s narrative seems to represent a\\nmore primitive tradition than our own.\\nFor our purpose it is not necessary to carry this\\nstudy of the cherubim much further. We have\\nalready established the two salient aspects of his\\nbeing, i. He is regarded as the winged bearer\\nof God, he is the cloudy chariot on which Jahveh\\nEzek. xxviii. 13-16 Toy s translation.\\n(221)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0259.jp2"}, "260": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nrides through the sky. 2. He is the guardian of\\ndivine places, of Paradise according to Genesis\\nand Ezekiel, and of the Holy of Holies in Solo-\\nmon s temple. It is not certain which of these\\nconceptions came first. The majority of scholars\\nseem to believe that the former is the older, and it\\nis quite true that birds or other winged creatures\\nregarded as the personification of storm clouds\\nare an old and even a primitive belief. But, on the\\nother hand, the belief that Jahveh dwelt on the\\nearth on some lofty mountain from which he\\noccasionally descended to view the works of men\\n^^seems to have come first, and only at a later\\ntime was Jahveh regarded as dwelling above in\\nthe ethereal regions. I therefore believe that the\\nconception of the cherub as the guardian of di-\\nvine places came first and that his transference to\\nthe sky was a later development. This belief is\\nsomewhat strengthened by the meaning of the\\nword itself, to which I now turn.\\nIf we could definitely determine the origin\\nof the word cherub, we should have an impor-\\ntant hint as to the people among whom it arose.\\nLenormant thought he had settled this point\\nwhen he found on an Assyrian talisman belong-\\ning to M. Louis de Clercq the word kirubu, or\\ncherub, accompanied by the ideographic sign\\nshed or sidu, meaning sacred bull. Lenormant\\ntherefore regarded the cherubim as the winged\\nbulls of Babylonian and Assyrian art which we\\nsee so often depicted as the guardians of sacred\\nplaces. Although this identification has proved\\nfalse, yet Lenormant s idea that the cheru-\\nbim closely resembled the mythical animals of\\nBegin, of Hist,, p. 126.\\n(222)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0260.jp2"}, "261": {"fulltext": "The Griffin\\nBabylonia, as we have seen, is not altogether\\nwrong.\\nA more probable etymology, defended by Dill-\\nmann and by many other scholars, associates the\\nword cherub with the Greek word ypvtp (griffin),\\nwhich is assigned to an Indo-Germanic root,\\ngrabh (grasp). Of all the fabulous animals of\\nantiquity, the griffin attained the widest geo-\\ngraphical distribution. In Greece it was a well-\\nknown figure from early times. Numerous\\nspecimens of it have been found in Egypt, Chal-\\ndea, Assyria, Persia, Cyprus, Syria and Phoeni-\\ncia. Where the plastic representations of art\\nfail, tradition takes it up and tells us that the\\ngriffin with flaming eyes watches vast treas-\\nures of gold in the mountains north of India,*\\nand in Hindu mythology a somewhat similar\\nanimal is the guardian of the sacred Soma.f In\\nform the griffin was represented as a combination\\nof the two most powerful denizens of the earth\\nand sky the lion and the eagle. Its body is\\nthat of a winged lion and its head is the head\\nof an eagle. It is interesting in this connection\\nto remember that of the four faces of Ezekiel s\\ncomposite cherubim, one was the face of an\\neagle. X This strange being is believed to have\\noriginated in Syria, among the Hittites, whose\\nvigor and originality in depicting animals is well\\nknown. From them it passed over the old world.\\nAmong the Hittites the griffin was not repre-\\nsented as a ferocious animal of prey, like the re-\\nSee Ctesias Indica, 12, ed. Lyon. ^lian, Hist.\\nAnim. iv. 27 Herodotus, iii. 116 ^schylus, Prometheus,\\n804 f., etc., quoted by Dillmann.\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2f Kuhn, Herabkunft des Feuers, 146 ff.\\nX Ezek. i. ID.\\n(223)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0261.jp2"}, "262": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nliefs of Tiamat, but rather like the Sphinx, as a\\nbeing of calm dignity and strength, the super-\\nnatural guardian of divine things.*\\nIt remains to add a word on the sword that\\naided the cherubim in keeping the way of the\\nTree of Life. By this we ought by no means to\\nunderstand an ordinary weapon in the hands of\\nthese watchers. The cherubim are at least two\\nin number, while there is only one sword. More-\\nover, these mythical beings are seldom if ever\\ndepicted as bearing arms. They are self-suffi-\\ncient. The sword also is self-sufficient and does\\nnot need the hand of the creature, for, to tell the\\ntruth, it is Jahveh s own sword and possesses in-\\nherent energy. And he placed to the east of\\nthe garden of Eden the cherubim and the flam-\\ning blade of the sword, which turns every way\\nto keep the way of the Tree of Life.\\nThe sword, then, possesses these two charac-\\nteristics: it moves of its own energy and it is a\\nsword of fire, a flaming blade. It is evidently akin\\nto the sword of Jahveh, so hard and great and\\nstrong, t or like the sword bathed in heav-\\nen. We have seen in the eighteenth Psalm\\nthat the cherubim were intimately connected\\nwith the phenomena of thunder and Hghtning.\\nEzekiel also constantly associated them with fire.\\nIn short, the two inherent characteristics of the\\nHebrew cherubim are united in this picture.\\nThe element of reposeful vigilance is contained\\nin the immovable watchers, and the element of\\nrestless action is supplied by the glittering blade\\nSee Furtwangler s interesting article, Gryps, in Roscher s\\nLexicon.\\nf Isaiah, xxvii. i and xxxiv. 5.\\n(224)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0262.jp2"}, "263": {"fulltext": "Babylonian Epic of Izdubar\\nof Jahveh s sword (the lightning), which cease-\\nlessly plays around the sacred tree ready to\\nstrike the profane intruder dead.\\nNow I believe we have touched on all the char-\\nacteristic conceptions of these two chapters and\\nwe may congratulate ourselves that there is noth-\\ning more difficult in store for us. I wish next to\\nturn to the literature of Babylon to see if there is\\nany narrative at present in our possession corre-\\nsponding to our story of Eden, Adam and Eve\\nand the Tree of Life. I have already called\\nattention to many minor points of resemblance,\\nbut there remains a large and splendid piece of\\nliterature for us to look at. I mean the\\ngreat epic poem which describes the adven-\\ntures of Izdubar or Gilgamesh. I have several\\nreasons for discussing this poem at some length.\\nIn the first place, it is one of the most con-\\nsiderable pieces of Babylonian literature and\\nis of value for its own sake. Secondly, the later\\ntablets of this epic contain the Babylonian ac-\\ncount of the Flood, which is so strikingly hke\\nours that even those persons who close their eyes\\nto all other points of resemblance between Baby-\\nlonian and Hebrew literature open them here.\\nAnd thirdly, it throws some light on the second\\nand third chapters of Genesis. Our first knowl-\\nedge of this poem we owe, as usual, to George\\nSmith, who discovered the larger portion of the\\ntablets we now possess in the great library of\\nAssurbanipal (668-626 b. c), at Nineveh, in 1872.\\nSince then other copies have been recovered\\nfrom the same city, but no complete copy has\\nbeen found. The poem in its original form con-\\nsisted of twelve tablets and may have contained\\n(225)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0263.jp2"}, "264": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthree thousand Hues, of which only about one-\\nhalf have been recovered.* The work of collect-\\ning and arranging these fragments has been per-\\nformed by Professor Paul Haupt, of the Johns\\nHopkins University, f Several excellent trans-\\nlations have been made. I shall depend largely\\non that of Alfred Jeremias.ij: As the poem stands,\\nit consists of fragments of twelve tablets, of which\\nthe last two are devoted largely to the Flood.\\nAlthough, so far as I know, our tablets go\\nback only to the copies presented by Assurbani-\\npal (seventh century b. c), yet there is no doubt\\nthat the story, and perhaps the poem, is im-\\nmensely older. Berosus tells us that the Baby-\\nlonian Noah before the flood was commanded by\\nhis deity to deposit all writings in his possession\\nin the city of the sun at Sippara. The city of\\nUruk (Erech), where a great part of the scene is\\nlaid, is one of the most ancient cities of Baby-\\nlonia, and representations of Gilgamesh or Izdu-\\nbar are found on some very old cylinders, prob-\\nably dating from before 2,000 b. c. These por-\\ntraits are all much alike, and they seem to repre-\\nsent a very unusual type of humanity one would\\nalmost say, a member of an earlier race than\\nthe Babylonian. The best proof of the enor-\\nmous age of the epic is the way its stories have\\ninfiltrated into the mythologies of many nations.\\nThe poem, as we have said, is divided into twelve\\ntablets or books, and as Izdubar is plainly con-\\nceived as a solar deity, these may very well stand\\nfor the twelve signs of the Zodiac through which\\nJastrow, Relig. of Bab., p. 471.\\nf Das Bab. Nimrod-Epos, Leipzig, 1884-1891.\\nX Izdubar-Nimrod, Leipzig, 1891.\\nCory s Fragments, p. 33.\\n(226)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0264.jp2"}, "265": {"fulltext": "Name of Izdubar\\nthe sun passes on his yearly path. It has been\\npointed out that several of the adventures of Iz-\\ndubar correspond with the signs of the Zodiac.\\nHe kills the lion in the month of Leo. His court-\\nship of Ishtar (goddess of love) occurs on the\\nsixth tablet, which corresponds to the sixth sign,\\nVirgo. The flood is described in the eleventh\\ntablet, and the eleventh sign is Aquarius, etc.*\\nThe hero of the poem is known by the double\\nname of Izdubar and Gilgamesh. The former\\nis the English equivalent commonly assigned to\\nhis name in the inscriptions since George Smith\\nits meaning is still doubtful. f The alternative,\\nGilgamesh, is, I believe, due to Pinches, who dis-\\ncovered on a lexicographical tablet the equation\\nIzdubar-Gilgamesh. This would identify him\\nwith an old king, Gilgamos.^ His name is al-\\nways preceded by the sign of divinity. It is dif-\\nficult to say exactly how we should regard him,\\nwhether as a man or as a god. It is true, prayer\\nis addressed to him as a mighty king and judge,\\nbut in the body of the poem he is scarcely more\\na mythical being than are some of the heroes of\\nHomer, and there is no good reason to doubt\\nthat, as in all compositions of this sort, an ancient\\nsetting of fact is preserved under a great deal of\\nfiction. The spiritual facts, however, alone are\\nimportant in all these ancient sagas, and the spir-\\nitual facts by their very nature can never be con-\\ncealed.\\nI need only add that this epic, Hke all ancient\\nepics, is not the work of one mind. Probably\\nA. H. Sayce in Smith s Chaldean Genesis, p. 176.\\nf Jeremias, Izd.-Nimrod, p. i.\\nX Jastrow, Relig-. of Bab., p. 468.\\n(227)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0265.jp2"}, "266": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmore than one people has worked over it, and\\nthe traces of their handiwork are very appa-\\nrent. The poem is one only in name. It con-\\nsists of a number of independent narratives, often\\nvery loosely connected, and it would be an easy\\ntask to separate them. As there is reason to be-\\nlieve that the poem was translated into Baby-\\nlonian from the Accadian language, it must be at\\nleast as old as 2000 b. c, and possibly older. Its\\nstories are of such a popular character that they\\nmay very well have been handed down by word\\nof mouth for a long time before they were re-\\nduced to writing.\\nThe poem opens, according to Haupt, with\\nthese interesting words:\\nHe who has beheld the history of Izdubar\\nknows all. He who sees the secret and hidden he\\nbrings knowledge which goes back before the Flood. He\\nwanders weary on a distant path.\\nThe first tablet, of which only a few fragments\\nremain, evidently describes a siege of the walled\\ncity, Uruk, and times of great distress.\\nThe she asses tread their foals under foot. The cows\\nturn against their calves. The people lament like the\\ncattle. The maidens mourn like doves. The gods of Uruk,\\nthe well protected, turn into flies and swarm around the\\nstreets. The demons of well-protected Uruk turn into\\nsnakes, and glide into holes Three years did the en-\\nemy besiege Uruk. The gates were bolted. The earth\\nworks were thrown up. Ishtar did not raise her head be-\\nfore the enemy. Then Bel opened his mouth, and\\nspoke to Ishtar, the queen, to make known the word. (Tab-\\nlet breaks off.)\\nThe next is fuller. There is great commotion\\nin Uruk on account of Izdubar, who is turning\\nthings upside down. At first it seems doubtful\\n(228)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0266.jp2"}, "267": {"fulltext": "Creation of Eabani\\nwhether Izdubar has captured Uruk and is abus-\\ning the people, or whether the people are carried\\naway with enthusiasm and are running after him.\\nOn the whole, the former is more probable.\\nIzdubar, the second tablet begins, did not\\nleave a son to his father, his daughter to a hero,\\nhis wife to a husband. Parents, therefore, com-\\nplain to the goddess of the city.\\nHe has no rival, Your inhabitants are led [to\\nbattle]. Izdubar leaves not a maiden [to her mother], his\\ndaughter to a hero, his wife to a husband. heard\\ntheir cry. To the goddess they called with loud\\nvoice, Thou, Aruru,* hast created him; create now his\\nequal. On the day of his heart may he Let them\\nfight with each other. Uruk [may witness it?]\\nThe only way they see of getting rid of Izdu-\\nbar is through some mightier hero who by the\\naid of the goddess may conquer him. Aruru s\\nanswer to this prayer is interesting.\\nWhen the goddess Aruru heard that, she made a man In\\nher heart, a man of Anu [i. e., by the help of Anu]. Aruru\\nwashed her hands, picked up clay, and threw it on the\\nground.\\nThis reminds us somewhat of Adam s creation\\nout of dust, although the solemnity and the ten-\\nderness of Genesis are altogether lacking. In\\nthe expression, threw it on the ground, we\\nsee the cold indifference to man so common in\\npaganism. The man so created, however, is a\\nvery interesting person. He becomes the de-\\nvoted friend of Izdubar and shares that hero s\\nadventures. The story of Eabani s life does not\\nIt will be remembered that in Pinches Creation tablet\\nAruru assisted Marduk in creating man.\\n(229)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0267.jp2"}, "268": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nseem to belong to the original poem at all.\\nEverything pertaining to him is strongly de-\\npicted. He is represented as man in his first\\nsavage condition. He is, in fact, the first man,\\nmade directly by a god out of dust and not be-\\ngotten, and it is hard not to imagine that at first\\nhe was conceived as a kind of Babylonian Adam\\nand that his association with Izdubar was added\\nlater. On the cylinders he is represented as half\\nbrute, half human.\\nShe made Eabani, a hero, a noble offspring, a man of the\\nfields; covered with hair was his body, with long tresses\\nlike a woman. The [waving?] hair of his head stood up like\\nthat of the wheat [god?]. He was clothed in a garment\\nlike the field. He ate grass with the gazelles, he drank\\nwater with the cattle of the field, he amused himself with\\nthe animals of the water.\\nIn this lonely life among the animals, with\\nwhom he is on very intimate terms, Eabani again\\nreminds us of Adam. The resemblance between\\nthem becomes more striking as we go on. What\\nfollows is introduced so abruptly that there seems\\nto be a break. The meaning, however, is plain.\\nEabani was created to overcome Izdubar, who is\\ndestroying Uruk. But of this Eabani knows\\nnothing. He is leading a happy life, far away\\nin the wilderness. It is therefore necessary that\\nsome means be discovered to bring Eabani to\\nUruk. Accordingly, Sadu, the hunter, is de-\\nspatched to capture him. Eabani s surprise and\\nanimal wrath in the presence of the first man he\\nhas ever seen are wonderfully described.\\nSadu, a hunter, the man-catcher, met him at the entrance\\nto the watering place. He, Eabani, saw him, the hunter.\\nHis countenance grew dark, he went with his cattle back\\n(230)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0268.jp2"}, "269": {"fulltext": "Sadu, the Hunter\\ninto the shelter, he was troubled, lamented, cried aloud,\\n[sad?] was his heart, his face was disturbed sor-\\nrow [stole into?] his heart. In the distance his\\nface was burning with anger.\\nHere something is lost. Sadu, the hunter,\\nbecomes afraid. He does not dare attempt\\nEabani s capture, and goes back to tell of his\\nfailure to the god who had sent him.\\nThe hunter opened his mouth and said [to Ea? or\\nShamash? his father]: My father one hero going is\\nnot enough. In heaven is his strength is like a man\\nof Anu. He strides along over the mountain.\\nWith the cattle of the field he continually eats\\ngrass. His feet are always at the entrance of the watering\\nplaces. I fear him, I will not go near him. He\\nhas filled up the hole I dug [to entrap him], torn away the\\ncords [I laid out] he let the cattle and beasts of the field\\nescape out of my hands, and would not allow me to hunt.\\n[The god] said to the hunter, [set out and go] to Uruk, the\\ncity of Izdubar.\\nFragments here indicate that in Uruk Sadu is\\nto find a priestess of Ishtar who will aid him in\\ncapturing Eabani. The narrative goes on\\nAccording to the advice of his father, the hunter sets\\nout and goes to Uruk. Before the face of Izdubar [the\\nhunter appears and speaks].\\nIn the same language Sadu tells Izdubar of ais\\nunsuccessful attempt. There is evidently some\\nconfusion here, for Izdubar is represented as ad-\\nvising Sadu how to capture Eabani, who was\\nmade to destroy him.\\nIzdubar spoke to him, Go, my hunter, take the priest-\\ness Uhat. When the cattle come to drink she shall show\\nherself to him. He shall see her and will approach. His\\ncattle that have flocked round him will run away. The\\nhunter went, he took with him the priestess Uhat, he took\\n(231)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0269.jp2"}, "270": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthe straight road. On the third day they reached the ap-\\npointed field. The hunter and the priestess sat down as\\nit pleased them. One day, two days, they sat at the en-\\ntrance to the watering place. With the cattle he took his\\ndrink, he played with the animals of the water. Eabani\\ncame, he whose house was in the mountains. He ate grass\\nwith the gazelles, he drank water with the cattle, he amused\\nhimself with the creatures of the water. Uhat saw the\\nanimal-man. That is he, Uhat [said the\\nhunter].\\nUhat charms Eabani and draws him away from\\nhis beloved animals. It is hard again not to see\\nin this a profound reminiscence of Genesis. As I\\nsaid before, the story of Eabani probably has\\nbeen tampered with to make it fit into the action\\nof the poem. The motives that led to this first\\nmeeting of Eabani and Uhat may have been en-\\ntirely altered. In its present form the Babylo-\\nnian epic contains much that is to us gross and\\nrevolting, and of the chaste reticence and purity\\nof our Paradise narrative there is hardly a trace.\\nWe must remember, however, that Izdubar is one\\nof the oldest pieces of human literature at least\\na thousand years older than the poems of Homer,\\nand we must regard its genuinely ancient na iveti\\nwith some indulgence. And yet, I repeat, cer-\\ntain motives of this story forcibly remind us of\\nour book. It was in this way that Eve found\\nAdam, living contentedly among his cattle,\\namong which Jahveh had looked for a help-\\nmeet for him, and by her influence Adam was\\nbrought to the sense of the dignity of manhood\\nand was withdrawn from the society of animals.*\\nI am indebted for this suggestion to Dr. Jastrow, Re-\\nligions of Babylonia, p. 476. Since these lectures were de-\\nlivered I have seen Dr. Jastrow s interesting brochure entitled\\nAdam and Eve in Babylonian Literature, and have been\\n(232)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0270.jp2"}, "271": {"fulltext": "Eabani and the Priestess\\nThis touch, so profound and so suggestive, also\\nfollows in the Babylonian story.\\nFor six days Eabani remained [near]. Afterward he\\nturned his face toward his cattle. They saw him, Eabani;\\nthe gazelles hid, the beasts of the field turned away from\\nhim.\\nThe meaning is plain. Eabani has become a\\nman by his association with woman; he is sep-\\narated forever from the animal kingdom. The\\nbeasts recognize this and are afraid of him.\\nThen Eabani was frightened and fell in a swoon. His\\nknees trembled, as his cattle ran away from him.\\nThen he heard his senses came back. He re-\\nturned and sat down at the feet of the priestess and looked\\nup into her face, and while the priestess speaks his ears\\nhear. She speaks to him, Eabani, you are\\nnoble, you are like a god. Why do you stay with the beasts\\nof the field? Come, I will bring you to walled Uruk, to the\\nbright house, the dwelling of Anu and Ishtar, to the place\\nof Izdubar who is perfect in strength, who like a mountain\\nbull excels the heroes in valor. While she speaks to him\\nhe listens to her words. He who is wise in heart seeks a\\nfriend. Come^ Uhat, take me to the bright and sacred\\ndwelling of Anu and Ishtar, to the place of Izdubar, who is\\nperfect in strength, and who like a mountain bull rules\\nover the heroes. I will fight with him, mightily will I\\n[win his friendship]. I will send to Uruk a lion [a wild-\\ncat] to prove Izdubar s strength.\\nIt will be noticed here, as in Genesis, that after\\nthe womafi has obtained her supremacy over the\\nman, her first act is to take him out of his happy\\ngarden and plunge him into toil and struggle.\\ngratified to find myself so much in accordance with the views\\nthere expressed. My debt to this distinguished scholar is already\\nso great that I prefer not to increase it by recasting what I have\\nwritten on the subject of Eabani and Adapa in the light of his\\nmore recent work.\\n(233)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0271.jp2"}, "272": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Twelve:\\nThe Epic of Izdubar and the Legend of A dap a\\nIN giving an account of the Babylonian epic\\nwhich narrated the adventures of Izdubar, or\\nGilgamesh, I have called attention to the reasons\\nfor studying this poem with some care. First,\\nbecause it is one of the oldest and most remark-\\nable compositions in existence, full of interest\\nand worth studying for its own sake; secondly,\\nbecause the latter part of the poem contains the\\nBabylonian story of the Flood, and thirdly, be-\\ncause scattered through the whole poem we find\\nsuggestions of the early chapters of Genesis.\\nWe have seen how Eabani, whom we may al-\\nmost call the Babylonian Adam, was created by\\nthe goddess Aruru out of clay, and how he lived\\na happy life among the animals, eating grass\\nwith the gazelles, until he came to the realiza-\\ntion of the dignity of manhood through his\\nfriendship with a woman, the priestess Uhat.\\nThe first thing Uhat does is to carry Eabani away\\nfrom his animal Paradise to the walled city of\\nUruk, where lives the great hero Izdubar, whom\\nEabani was created to fight with. However,\\nthey do not fight. Eabani is warned in a dream\\nby his mother, Aruru, that Izdubar s powers\\nare greater than his own, and instead of fight-\\ning, the two heroes form a life-long friendship\\n(234)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0272.jp2"}, "273": {"fulltext": "The Sacred Grove\\nand support each other in the series of adventures\\nwhich follow. Their first adventure is with the\\ngiant Humbaba, who appears to have been an\\nancient king of Elam.* Humbaba is the pos-\\nsessor of a wonderful sacred grove, from which\\na pestilence goes out to strike every profane in-\\ntruder dead. Here Izdubar has a dream, which\\nIZDUBAR AND EABANI\\nI will give as a specimen of the dreams that are\\nso common in this poem.\\nThe dream that I dreamed was quite The\\nheaven resounded, the earth roared and darkness came\\ndown, the Hghtning shone, fire came forth sated [with de-\\nstruction], full of death. The brightness was extinguished,\\nit was out of the fire fell down, became smoke.\\nThey enter the sacred grove where Humbaba\\nwas accustomed to walk with lofty strides, and\\nevidently slay him. The episode which follows\\nis so peculiar and such wonderfully good epic\\npoetry that I give it entire. After the battle,\\nJeremias, Izdubar-Nimrod, p. 21.\\n-,L k,J\\n(235)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0273.jp2"}, "274": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nIzdubar washed himself, removed all traces of the\\ncombat, dressed himself in a shining white gar-\\nment and put on his diadem. So noble was the\\nform and appearance of the hero that it excited\\nthe admiration of the great goddess Ishtar, the\\nBabylonian Venus.\\nCome, Izdubar, she says to him, be my spouse.\\nGive me your love for a gift. You shall be my husband,\\nI will be your wife. I will place you on a chariot of\\nprecious stones and gold, whose wheels are of gold, its\\nhorns are of sapphire. You shall drive great kudanu\\n[lions]. Under the fragrance of cedars you shall come\\ninto our house. When you enter our house, then shall\\nkiss your feet. Kings, lords, and princes shall\\nbow before you, [All the produce of] mountain and\\nland they shall bring you as a tribute.\\nBut this invitation, which Heine unconsciously\\nso perfectly reproduced in his Princess Use, Izdu-\\nbar declines. He recalls the fate of the former\\naspirants to Ishtar s favor, and lays aside the\\ndangerous distinction.\\nVery well, he says, I will openly relate your incon-\\nstancies. Tammuz [Adonis], the husband of your youth,\\nyou compelled to weep year after year. You loved the\\nbeautiful Allulu bird, you crushed him, you broke his wings.\\nNow he stands in the wood and cries, Oh! my wings.\\nYou also loved a lion of wonderful strength, seven and\\nseven times [again and again] you outwitted him. You\\nalso loved a horse mighty in battle, with whip and spur\\ndid you afiflict him; although he had galloped seven leagues,\\nwhen he was tired and wanted to drink you urged him on,\\nand compelled his mother, the goddess Sibili, to weep.\\nYou loved a chief shepherd, who constantly burned incense\\nto you and daily slaughtered kids. You beat him and\\nturned him into a tiger, so that his own shepherds would\\nhunt him and his dogs bite him fiercely. You loved a\\ngiant your father s gardener, who continually brought\\nyou presents, and every day prettily adorned your table\\n[made bright your dishes]. You cast your eye on him\\nand made him mad. O, my Giant, you said, come now,\\n(236)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0274.jp2"}, "275": {"fulltext": "IZDUBAR AND IsHTAR\\nyou will enjoy your fruit. You shall stretch out your hand\\nand dispel our hesitation. The giant said to you, What\\nscheme are you plotting against me, my little mother?\\nPrepare no meal, for I will not partake of it. What I\\nshould partake of is bad and accursed food, covered with\\ndangerous fire. As soon as you heard that, you\\nattacked him and turned him into a dwarf, and laid kim\\ndown on a couch, so that he could not stand up. Now you\\nlove me also, but like those [you will destroy me].\\nAll these allusions were popular stones, several\\nof which passed into Greek and Roman mythol-\\nogy. The shepherd turned into a tiger reminds\\nus of Actseon, changed to a stag by Diana and\\ntorn by his dogs. Tammuz was Adonis. The\\ncharge that Ishtar caused him to weep, however,\\ndoes not seem well founded, as Tammuz, the\\nyoung summer god, was killed by the sharp tooth\\nof approaching winter. It was Ishtar who wept\\nfor him, and who to free the souls of the departed\\ndescended into hell. The ironical and bantering\\nlanguage that Izdubar addresses to one of the\\nchief deities of his people surprises us in so an-\\ncient a poem. It reminds us of the religious\\nattitude of the Romans in late and sceptical ages.\\nWhen people address their gods in this manner\\nit can hardly be said that they believe in them,\\nbut it is not a little singular to see paganism dis-\\nintegrating and faith passing into ridicule at so\\nearly a period.\\nThe wrath of Ishtar is most naively related, and\\nthe embarrassment of her father, who was unable\\nto resist her tears, reminds us of similar predica-\\nments of Zeus. She flew at once to Anu and said\\nto him, My father, Izdubar has insulted me.\\nIzdubar has related my faults, my faults and evil\\ndeeds. Anu, however, who takes for granted\\n(237)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0275.jp2"}, "276": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthat Izdubar s criticisms are merited, tries to\\npacify her. Do not be disturbed, he says,\\neven though Izdubar has related your faults\\nand evil deeds. Ishtar refuses to be mollified.\\nMy father, she prays, make me a heavenly\\nbull. Anu hesitates. What is this you ask\\nIshtar prevails, and the heavenly bull is made and\\nis sent down to destroy the insolent hero. Izdu-\\nbar and Eabani, undaunted, attack it together\\nand kill it. Ishtar s wrath now knows no bounds.\\nShe mounts the wall of Uruk and utters a loud\\ncry.\\nCurse on Izdubar, who injured me and who slew the\\nheavenly bull! Eabani heard those words of Ishtar s,\\ntore off the ibbatu [shoulder?] of the heavenly bull, and\\nthrew it in her face. Oh! you, I will conquer you as you\\ndid [think to do] him.\\nTheir triumph was short-lived. Eabani was\\nsoon made to pay the penalty of his impiety.\\nEverything points to the fact that he did not die\\na natural death. In the twelfth tablet we are\\ntold that the earth swallowed him up, and Izdu-\\nbar himself was soon smitten with a deadly lep-\\nrosy. From this point the character of the poem\\nchanges. Its tone becomes more tragical and\\nthe superhuman element begins to reveal itself\\nmore plainly. The whole setting becomes more\\nsombre and weird. Izdubar has lost his friend\\nEabani, and he is plagued by a sore disease. He\\nbegins to turn his face toward a certain magical\\ncountry, the Island of the Blessed, which lies\\nfar out to sea beyond the waters of Death. On\\nthis island grows the Tree of Life, or as it is\\ncalled in the poem, the plant that makes the\\nold man young again. Only two mortals have\\n(^38)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0276.jp2"}, "277": {"fulltext": "SlT-\\nNAPISTIM\\never reached those blessed shores, the way to\\nwhich is beset with terrible dangers. They are\\nSit-napistim and his wife. Sit-napistim is one\\nof the most curious figures in the whole narra-\\ntive. He is the Babylonian Noah, who, with\\nhis family alone, escaped from the deluge that\\ndestroyed the world.\\nIn one respect, however, Sit-napistim is supe-\\nrior to Noah. After the flood had subsided, he\\ndid not share the fate of mortal men. He was\\ntranslated to the Island of the Blessed and be-\\ncame its guardian. On account of his escape\\nfrom death, he has also been compared with\\nEnoch, who was not, for God took him. But\\nthe fact that Sit-napistim s wife also escaped\\ndeath and continued to live with him in the Island\\nof the Blessed somewhat weakens the compari-\\nson.\\nNow let us return to our story.\\nIzdubar wept bitterly over his friend Eabani, lying on the\\nground. I will not die like Eabani. Sorrow has entered\\nmy soul. I have learned the fear of death. I will\\ngo with rapid step to the powerful Sit-napistim, son of\\nKidin-Marduk.\\nSit-napistim s dwelling place is vaguely de-\\nscribed as in the distance, at the confluence of\\nthe streams. So Izdubar sets out. His first\\nserious adventure is with the Scorpion-Men,\\nwho guard the pass of Mount Masu. The de-\\nscription of these men is very curious.\\nThen he came to the mountain pass, Masu, whose en-\\ntrance was continually watched by beings whose backs\\nreached to the confines of heaven, and their breasts below\\nArallu [the lower world]. The Scorpion-Men guard the\\nBudde, Urgeschichte, p. i8i.\\n(239)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0277.jp2"}, "278": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ngate. They strike terrible alarm, their look is death. Awful\\nis their brightness, dashing down mountains. They guard\\nthe sun when he rises and when he sets.\\nThis is all interesting as throwing light on\\nthe Babylonian cosmology. The Babylonians\\nrepresented the confines of the world as a great\\ndam which supported the firmament of heaven.\\nAt each end of the world stands a great moun-\\nSCORPION-MEN\\ntain on one side the bright sunrise mountain,\\non the other the dark sunset mountain. As to\\nthe position of these two mythical mountains,\\nnaturally nothing definite can be said. They\\nstand, however, on the verge between cosmos\\nand chaos. This is well brought out by the\\nScorpion-Men who guard the rising and the set-\\nting of the sun. They stand on the mountain\\n(240)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0278.jp2"}, "279": {"fulltext": "Island of the Blessed\\npass, the boundary line that separates the world\\nfrom chaos. The upper portion of their bodies,\\nwhich is human, reaches to heaven; the lower,\\nserpentine part belongs to the nether world.*\\nThese Scorpion-Men, of course, are the constel-\\nlation Scorpio, through which the sun passes in\\nthe autumnal equinox. In the Creation tablet\\nthey were described as among the monsters of\\nTiamat, but, after her downall, they apparently\\nbecame guardians of the sun. In regard to the\\ngeneral geography of this portion of the poem,\\nthe Island of the Blessed to which Izdubar is\\nmaking his way lies far from land, beyond the\\nwaters of bitterness and the waters of Death, at\\nthe confluence of the streams. Two of these\\nstreams, in any event, are the Tigris and the\\nEuphrates. We should, therefore, regard the\\nIsland of the Blessed as a mythical island far out\\nin the Persian Gulf. There seems to be no\\nreason to regard it as in the domain of the\\nlower world, for the very thing that distin-\\nguished Sit-napistim is that he did not die at\\nall, and he and his wife are the sole occupants\\nof this island. The path taken by Izdubar is,\\nof course, very obscure, for he was going by a\\nmythical way to an island that never existed.\\nJeremias informs us,t however, that the table-\\nland Masu was identified in the annals of Assur-\\nbanipal and Sargon with the Syro-Arabian des-\\nert, south and southeast of the Tigris and Eu-\\nphrates, and was described as the place of\\nthirst and desolation, to which no bird of heaven\\ncomes, where no wild asses, no gazelles graze.\\nJensen, Kosmologie der Babylonier, p. 316.\\nf Izdubar-Nimrod, p. 29.\\n(241)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0279.jp2"}, "280": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThis terrible land, so little known, was very natu-\\nrally selected as on the way leading to the waters\\nof Death.\\nWhen Izdubar saw them [the Scorpion-Men], his coun-\\ntenance was full of terror and alarm. Their frightful ap-\\npearance robbed him of his senses. The Scorpion-Man\\nspoke to his wife, He who comes tq us is of the bodily\\nlikeness of a god.\\nIzdubar tells him of his purpose, and the Scor-\\npion-Man describes the fearful dangers of the\\nmarch through Mount Masu. Miles of thick\\ndarkness extend in every direction. At Izdu-\\nbar s entreaty he opens the gate, and the myste-\\nrious journey now begins.\\nHe wanders one mile, thick is the darkness\\nit does not grow light. He wanders two miles,\\nthick is the darkness, and so on through the\\ntwelve miles in the heart of the mountain. At\\nlast he emerges on the shore of the sea, and sees\\na magnificent tree loaded with jewels and pre-\\ncious stones, which reminds us of Ezekiel s\\nstrange account of the precious stones in the gar-\\nden of Eden. Here sits a divine maiden, Sabitu\\n(a very obscure personage), on the throne of\\nthe sea. Seeing Izdubar approach, Sabitu\\nwithdraws to her palace and bolts the door. Iz-\\ndubar says to her, Sabitu, what do you see?\\nWhy do you bolt the door? [if you do\\nnot open] I will shatter the door. She yields,\\nand Izdubar tells her of the journey he has under-\\ntaken and of his beloved friend resolved to\\ndust. If it is possible I will cross the sea; if\\nit is not possible I will lay myself down on the\\nearth, mourning. Sabitu tells him Izdubar,\\nthere has never been a ferry-boat, and no one\\n(242)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0280.jp2"}, "281": {"fulltext": "IzDUBAR Seeks Immortality\\nfrom time immemorial has crossed that sea.\\nShamash [sun], the hero, alone has\\ncrossed the sea. Besides Shamash, who can\\ncross it Hard is the crossing, difficult its path,\\nlocked are the waters of Death, the bolts are\\ndrawn.\\nShe tells him, however, of Arad-Ea, the boat-\\nman, who carried Sit-napistim over. Arad-Ea\\nconsents to transport him, but tells Izdubar first\\nto go to the woods and to cut a rudder sixty ells\\nlong. After forty-five days of danger, during\\nwhich the ship staggers and tosses, Arad-Ea\\ncomes to the waters of Death. Through these\\nwaters they pass with only twelve strokes. At\\nlast the danger is over. Izdubar loosens his\\nbelt as they approach the shores of the Blessed\\nIsland. Sit-napistim, who seems to be rather\\nweary of this solitary immortality, is glad to see\\nIzdubar, but will not permit him to land. So\\nthey converse from the boat and the shore. The\\nnarrative is here very fragmentary, but we can\\ndiscern that Izdubar tells his ancestor the story of\\nhis life, his many adventures, the death of Eabani,\\nand the terrible sacrifices he has made to reach\\nthe Tree of Life. Sit-napistim, however, does not\\nencourage him in his hope of immortality. So\\nlong, he says, as we build houses, so long as\\nwe set seals to contracts, so long as brothers\\nquarrel, so long as there is enmity so\\nlong as the rivers waves flow to [the sea], no\\nimage will be made of Death. The\\ndays of Death are unknown to [man].\\nTo this Izdubar naturally offers the objection\\nthat Sit-napistim himself has escaped death. I\\nsee you, Sit-napistim, he says, your appear-\\n(243)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0281.jp2"}, "282": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nance is not changed, you are like me\\ntell me how it is that you have attained the life\\namong the gods which you desired?\\nSit-napistim then relates to Izdubar a long and\\nremarkable narrative of the Deluge, which occu-\\npies the greater part of the eleventh tablet. As\\nwe are not yet ready for this story, I pass it over\\nfor the present to finish the history of Izdubar.\\nAt the end of his long recital, Sit-napistim, who\\nhas become very well disposed to Izdubar, says\\nto him:\\nNow your concern is, whicli one of the gods will lend\\nyou strength. The life that you desire you shall obtain.\\nVery well, go to sleep. Six days he was like one who sits\\nlame. Sleep came upon him like a storm wind.\\nIn the meantime, Sit-napistim s wife, who\\npities Izdubar, proposes to her husband that they\\nprepare a magic food which will relieve him tem-\\nporarily, and that they send him back again. The\\npreparation of this food is singularly described.\\nFirst it was [prepared] secondly, it was peeled\\nthirdly, it was moistened; fourthly, he cleansed\\nthe bowl fifthly, old age was added sixthly, he\\nsuddenly transformed him. Then the man ate\\nthe magic food.\\nIzdubar feels the effect of the magic food, but\\nknows that it cannot permanently avert death.\\nNothing but the Tree of Life can do that.\\nWhere shall I go? Death lies upon my bed.\\nThen Sit-napistim grants his wish to land on the\\nIsland and tells the boatman of a healing, cleans-\\ning spring in which Izdubar may bathe and wash\\nhis leprosy away. Izdubar washes and is com-\\npletely healed.\\n(244)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0282.jp2"}, "283": {"fulltext": "The Loss of the Magical Plant\\nHe washed his sores as white as snow in the\\nwater, he washed off the leprous skin; his body\\nappeared whole. He returns to Sit-napistim,\\nwho now reveals to him the last and greatest se-\\ncret of the Island. Sit-napistim says You are\\nreturning satisfied and healed. What shall I give\\nyou that you may return to your own land? I\\nwill tell you a secret (unfortunately this is much\\nbroken), I will reveal to you the There\\nis a plant Hke a thistle pricks hke\\na piece of thorn. If your hands can gather\\nit r\\nIzdubar leaves his ship, piles up stones to en-\\nable him to reach the desired object, and at last\\nsucceeds in plucking the miraculous plant, which\\nhe brings to the ship.\\nIzdubar said to Arad-Ea, the boatman, This plant Is\\na plant of promise, by which a man obtains life. I will\\ntake the plant with me to walled Uruk; I will raise a wood\\nof it, and will then cut it off. Its name shall be An Old\\nMan Grows Young. I will eat of it and return to the vigor\\nof my youth.\\nThen they went on their way.\\nThey left ten miles of the way behind them; after\\ntwenty miles they stopped. Izdubar saw a spring of cool\\nwater. He descended and while he was pouring out water\\nwithin, a snake came out. The plant slipped from him,\\na demon came out and took the plant away. In\\nhis fright he uttered a curse. It Izdubar sat down\\nand wept. Tears flowed over his cheeks. [He said] to\\nArad-Ea, the boatman, Wherefore is my strength re-\\nnewed? Why does my soul rejoice in its life? I have\\nreceived no benefit. The benefit is gone to the earth-lion\\n[earth spirit]. Now, after only twenty miles, another has\\ngot possession of the plant. As I opened the well the\\nplant slipped from me. Who am I that I should\\npossess it?\\n(245)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0283.jp2"}, "284": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nAfter all his labors and sufferings, Izdubar has\\nfailed to achieve the purpose of his journey. It is\\ntrue he has washed away his leprosy in the\\nspring of Hfe, and his powers are renewed by the\\nmagic food which Sit-napistim and his wife have\\nprepared for him, but he has failed to retain pos-\\nsession of the plant that makes the old man\\nyoung again, and he must yet taste of death.\\nAccordingly, he returns in despair to Uruk,\\nwhere he celebrates the funeral of Eabani and\\nmakes lamentation for him. The remainder of\\nthe poem is very interesting, as it reveals the old\\nBabylonian conception of the condition of the\\ndead.\\n[You go no more] to a temple. [You no more put on]\\nwhite garments. No more do you anoint yourself with the\\nsweet smelling fat of bulls, so that [the people] crowd\\naround you for the sake of the perfume. You no longer\\ndraw your bow on the earth, those whom you have wounded\\nshut you in. You no longer carry the sceptre in your hand\\nthe death spirits banish you. You no longer put\\nrings on your feet. No longer do you raise the war cry.\\nThe wife that you loved, you kiss no more. The wife that\\nyou hate, you beat no more [an equally painful thought].\\nYour daughter that you loved, you kiss no more. The\\ndaughter that you hated, you beat no more. The misery of\\nthe nether world takes hold of you. She who is dark there,\\nshe who is dark there. Mother Ninasu,* she who is dark\\nthere, whose form is covered by no bright robe, whose\\nbreast is like a young sappati animal\\nIt is remarkable that all the great epics of an-\\ntiquity end in the attempt to solve the mystery of\\ndeath. Every great pagan poem is haunted by\\nthe sadness and misery of the next life. The\\ncause of this sadness is most plainly revealed in\\nthe poem. The next Hfe is purely negative; it\\nWife of Nirgal, goddess of the lower world.\\n(246)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0284.jp2"}, "285": {"fulltext": "Ancient Idea of Future Life\\nconsists in the lack of all we have loved here.\\nThis must always be the way in which a spiritual\\nlife presents itself to men who do not hve in the\\nspirit. To them, the extinction of sense with its\\npleasures is the end of all they hold dear. And\\nyet, miserable as men believe death to be, they\\nfeel a natural curiosity in regard to it. This curi-\\nosity is usually gratified in the old poems by\\nevoking the shades and making them repeat the\\npopular opinions in regard to the land of the\\ndead, or by the descent of some hero or heroine\\nto the nether world. In Izdubar, the former ex-\\npedient is adopted, the latter in Ishtar s descent\\ninto hell. Eabani is called back to earth for a\\nshort colloquy, and I cannot help thinking that\\nthe heavy and sombre misery in which the poem\\nends is more impressive than the more minute\\nand graphic descriptions of Homer and Virgil.\\nIzdubar goes from one temple to another, until,\\nat last, he encounters Nirgal, god of the lower\\nworld.\\nRattle at the door of the grave [Izdubar says to him].\\nOpen the earth, that the spirit of Eabani may come out of\\nthe earth Hke a breath of wind. [When the hero Nirgal]\\nheard this, he rattled on the grave-chamber, opened the\\nearth, let the spirit of Eabani pass out like a breath of\\nwind,\\nSpeak, my friend, speak, my friend [Izdubar cries to\\nhim], tell me the nature of that land which you have seen.\\nSpeak to me. I cannot tell you, my friend; I cannot tell\\nyou if I wished to tell you the nature of that land.\\nSit down and weep. I will sit and weep.\\nWhat you have done Why your heart has rejoiced.\\nThe worms eat it like an old garment. What you\\nhave done, why your heart is rejoiced is filled\\nwith dust crouches down.\\nIt is a great pity that these lines are so frag-\\n(247)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0285.jp2"}, "286": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmentary. The poem closes, as Jeremias says, in\\na kind of rhythmic antiphon between Izdubar\\nand Eabani, which describes the joys of Walhalla\\nawaiting heroes fallen in battle, and the unhappy\\nfate of the man whose corpse remains unburied,\\none of the commonest beliefs of antiquity.\\nOn a pillow lying.\\nDrinking cool water,\\nHe who was wounded in battle.\\n(You saw it? Yes, I saw it.)\\nHis father and his mother [hold?] his head,\\nAnd his wife [kneels?] at his side.\\nWhose corpse lies on the field,\\n(You saw it? Yes, I saw it.)\\nHis soul has no rest on the earth.\\nWhosoever has no one who cares for his soul,\\n(You saw it? Yes, I saw it.)\\nThe dregs of the cup, the remains of the food, what\\nis thrown into the street.\\nThat he must eat.\\nEabani is represented as regretting the step\\nhe took in coming to Uruk. He curses Sadu,\\nthe hunter, and the priestess Uhat, who took him\\naway from his happy life with the animals. He\\nwishes that they may be shut up in the great\\nprison. The poem ends with this sad descrip-\\ntion of the lower world\\nTo the house of darkness, the dwelling of Irkalla,* to the\\nhouse whose inhabitant does not come out, to the path\\nwhich never returns, to the house whose inhabitants are\\ndeprived of light, to the place where dust is their food,\\nmire. There are they clothed like birds in garments of\\nwings and do not see the light, but dwell in darkness. [In\\nthe house] my friend, which I inhabit dwell the wearers of\\nheavy crowns, [there live] the wearers of crowns, who\\nfrom the most ancient times ruled the land, whose names\\nIrkalla, a god of the lower world. See Jastrow, p. 592.\\n(248)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0286.jp2"}, "287": {"fulltext": "Reminders of Genesis\\nand memories Anu and Bel have preserved. There they\\nprepare cold distasteful food, They pour\\nout water. [In the house] my friend, that I inhabit live\\nchief priests and honorable men, live conjurers and\\nmagicians. [There dwell] the temple-servants of the great\\ngods, there dwells Etana,* there dwells Ner,f there dwells\\nthe queen of the lower world, the goddess Ninkigal.^\\n[There lives] the Writer of the lower world,\\nbowed before her. [The goddess Ninkigal raised] her head,\\nwas aware of me.\\nApart from the Flood legend, there are only\\ntwo episodes in the epic of Izdubar that remind\\nus of our Book, and they are widely separated\\nfrom each other one is the Island of the\\nBlessed, and the other is the story of Eabani, the\\nwild man made by Aruru. Little as the Island of\\nthe Blessed reminds us of the Garden of Eden\\nwhen viewed with a superficial glance, there is no\\ndoubt that it contains many points of similarity\\nwith our Paradise. The Island of the Blessed,\\nit is true, lies in the sea, or, more particularly, in\\nthe Persian Gulf. The Garden of Eden, on the\\ncontrary, seems to He in the desert. That is a\\ngreat difference, but, as I have said, the general\\ngeographical setting of our story is not Baby-\\nlonian. In spite of this fact, we discern many\\nminor resemblances between our narrative and\\nthe Babylonian epic. The Garden of Eden lies\\nat the parting of four great streams, two of which\\nare the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Island\\nof the Blessed lies at the confluence of the riv-\\ners, two of which certainly are the Tigris and\\nthe Euphrates. In ancient times, in addition to\\nthese rivers, two others the Kercha and the\\nA mythical hero. Jastrow, p. 519,\\ni.e., Nergal.\\ni Allata.\\n(249)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0287.jp2"}, "288": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nKarun discharged into the Persian Gulf.\\nThe confluence of these four rivers is just as\\nmythical as the separation in Genesis of one main\\nriver into four great streams. In the Garden of\\nEden, two persons a man and his wife live a\\nkind of supernatural life, in daily intercourse\\nwith God. In the Island of the Blessed, also,\\ntwo persons a man and his wife live a su-\\npernatural life beyond the power of death. In\\nboth Eden and the Island of the Blessed, alone\\nin all the earth, grows the Plant or the Tree of\\nLife, by eating which one may escape the power\\nof death. In both stories man is prevented from\\neating of that tree. Lastly, both Eden and the\\nIsland are supernatural places, unlike the rest of\\nthe world, and so guarded by supernatural\\nbeings as to make approach to them almost, if\\nnot quite, impossible.\\nLet us turn next to Eabani, whom we may re-\\ngard as a Babylonian counterpart of Adam.\\nEach is represented as a first man, not born,\\nbut created by Deity. Eabani s creation out of\\nclay reminds us of Adam s creation out of dust.\\nLike Adam, he lived for a long time in a state of\\nnature among the animals, with whom he was\\non terms of great intimacy. To Adam and to\\nEabani comes a woman to Adam, Eve to Ea-\\nbani, Uhat. The effect of these two women on\\nthe two men is a double one. At first, Eve draws\\naway Adam as Uhat, Eabani from the society\\nof the animals and each woman brings her hus-\\nband to the sense of his dignity as a human being.\\nBy the influence of Eve, however, Adam loses\\nParadise and is driven out into the world, where\\nJensen, Kosmol. der Bab., p. 597.\\n(250)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0288.jp2"}, "289": {"fulltext": "Adam and Eabani\\nhis children begin the task of building cities and\\nof laying the foundation of civilization. Uhat\\nalso at once takes Eabani away from his happy\\ngarden, and plunges him into the troubles of civ-\\nilized life. In each instance death indirectly fol-\\nlows. The sentence passed upon Adam is Dust\\nthou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.\\nEabani also was made of clay, and when he dies\\nhe is resolved to dust. It is true, the motives\\nof these two stories are absolutely unlike, but we\\nshould remember that the repulsive motive run-\\nning through the story of Eabani in the epic of\\nIzdubar, in all probability was not the original\\nmotive of a character that is drawn with spirit\\nand grace, and with a touch always strong\\nand sometimes very delicate. At the present\\ntime I do not hesitate to say that if there is any\\ncounterpart in Babylonian literature to the story\\nof Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, we\\nfind that counterpart in the ancient epic of\\nIzdubar.\\nThere is one other Babylonian legend which,\\nas many scholars have suggested,* may have\\ncontributed to form a portion of the history of\\nAdam. Among the tablets discovered at El\\nAmarna in Egypt is one legendary text which\\nrelates the adventures of a certain hero, Adapa.\\nThe narrative is briefly as follows: Adapa, a\\nfisherman, is plying his calling under the pro-\\ntection of his patron, Ea, in the waters of the Per-\\nsian Gulf. Suddenly a storm arises, coming up\\nfrom the south in the form of a bird. Adapa\\nProposed by Sayce, Academy, 1893, No. 1055. See, also,\\nZimmern, Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft, 88, p. 169 and\\nespecially Jastrow in Relig. of Bab., p. 544 ff., and in Adam\\nand Eve, Chicago, 1899.\\n(251)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0289.jp2"}, "290": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nis blown into the water, and subdues this storm\\nby breaking the bird s wings, in consequence of\\nwhich for seven days the south wind did not\\nblow across the land. Anu, whose dominion\\nAdapa has invaded, is enraged, and demands\\nfrom Ea the surrender of the sinning fisherman.\\nEa consents to give up Adapa, but warns him\\nhow to conduct himself before the gods.\\nWhen thou comest before Anu they will offer thee the\\nfood of death. Do not eat. They will offer thee the waters\\nof death. Do not drink. They will offer thee a garment.\\nP t it on. They will offer thee oil. Anoint thyself. The\\norder I give thee do not neglect. The word that I speak to\\nthee take to heart.\\nThis advice turns out to be not wholly disin-\\nterested. Adapa is now arraigned before the\\ngods. In answer to Ann s question as to why\\nhe has broken the wings of the south wind,\\nAdapa replies\\nMy lord, for the house of my lord [i. e., Ea] I was fish-\\ning in the midst of the sea. The waters lay still around me\\nwhen the south wind began to blow and forced me under-\\nneath. Into the dwelling of the fish it drove me. In the\\nanger of my heart [I broke the wings of the south wind].\\nAnu is mollified, but objects to the presence\\nof Adapa in the abode of the gods. Since, how-\\never, Adapa has intruded into heaven and has\\nseen what is not permitted mortals to behold,\\nthe gods agree to confer immortality on him by\\npermitting him to partake of their heavenly food\\nand drink.\\nWhat shall we grant him? Offer hirn food of life that\\nhe may eat of it. They brought it to him, but he did not\\nJastrow s translation.\\n(252)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0290.jp2"}, "291": {"fulltext": "Legend of Adapa\\neat. Waters of life they brought him, but he did not drink.\\nA garment they brought him. He put it on. Oil they\\nbrought him. He anointed himself.\\nAdapa, it will be observed, is obeying literally\\nthe commands of Ea, all unconscious of the de-\\nception that has been practised on him. It is\\nEa, god of humanity, who begrudges his creature\\nimmortality. The other gods are astonished at\\nAdapa s refusal.\\nAnu looked at him and lamented over him. Come,\\nAdapa, why didst thou not eat and drink? Now thou\\ncanst not live.\\nAdapa replies simply:\\nEa, my lord, commanded me not to eat and drink.\\nWhat Adapa s subsequent fate was we do not\\nas yet know, for here the tablet breaks off.\\nIt is very plain that this legend is concerned\\nwith the old familiar problem, the possibility of\\nman s attaining everlasting life by partaking of\\nthe food of the gods. Onthis point it corresponds\\nwell enough with the stories of Adam and Izdubar.\\nIn some respects the legend of Adapa reminds us\\nmore of Genesis than it does of the epic poem.\\nIzdubar was deprived at last of the magic food\\nby an accident or by the greed of the earth spirit,\\nwhile Adam was prevented from eating of the\\nTree of Life by Jahveh, and Adapa was pre-\\nvented from eating the food of immortality by\\nhis lord, Ea. There is another very striking re-\\nsemblance between the Genesis story and that of\\nAdapa which I should hesitate to point out were\\nit not that it may throw light on one of the dark-\\n(253)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0291.jp2"}, "292": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nest verses of Genesis. I only wonder that it has\\nescaped the keen-sighted Jastrow. Adapa was\\nprevented from eating the magic food by the de-\\nception of Ea. Ea informed him that the food of\\nHfe was food of death and that by partaking of it\\nhe would die. In the story of Eden, Jahveh,\\nhoping to deter Adam from eating the forbidden\\nfruit, also misrepresents the effect of eating it.\\nIn the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt\\nsurely die. Have we here the explanation of\\nthis strange misstatement? It is true, the cases\\nare not completel}^ parallel. Adam, in spite of\\nthe warning, eats, and proves the threat un-\\nfounded by continuing to live. Moreover, the\\ntree concerning which the warning was given\\nwas not the Tree of Life, but the Tree of the\\nKnowledge of good and evil. This last point,\\nhowever, counts for little. The Tree of Knowl-\\nedge is the creation of the Jehovist, for which\\nno counterpart has been found, and a marked\\nconfusion has been noticed in his attempt to\\ncombine his story of the Tree of Knowledge\\nwith the old myth of the Tree of Life. We may\\nadmit, then, that the problem in general is much\\nthe same, and the solution is the same. Even in\\nthe development of the action of the two narra-\\ntives we notice a certain similarity. Adapa has\\ngained some knowledge of the secrets of the\\ngods; consequently it is deemed best to admit\\nhim altogether to their charmed circle by be-\\nstowing on him the food of immortality. That\\npurpose, however, Ea, his lord, thwarts, and\\nsends Adapa back to earth. Adam, too, has be-\\ncome like one of us, knowing good and evil,\\nand lest he should attain more perfect equality\\n(254)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0292.jp2"}, "293": {"fulltext": "Superiority of Genesis\\nwith divine beings, he is thrust out into the world\\nwithout eating of the Tree of Life.\\nThis is about as far as the similarity extends.\\nAdapa is not Adama, as Sayce imagined. He is\\nnot the first man. He dwells in no magic gar-\\nden. And of Eve in this legend we find no trace.\\nIn the dress which the gods gave Adapa, and\\nwhich, by the advice of Ea, he accepted, we may\\nhave, as Jastrow suggests, a faint reminder of the\\ncoats of skins that Jahveh made for Adam and\\nEve.\\nOne word more must be added at the end of^\\nthis long examination of the story of the Crea-\\ntion and Fall of man. The material setting\\nof our story, as we have seen, is largely mythical.\\nThose wonderful symbols of Genesis, the Garden\\nof Eden, the Serpent, and the Tree of Life, the\\nfirst man and the first woman, the cherubim and\\nthe flaming sword, are all figures more or less^^\\nfamiliar to the mythologies of the nations. The\\nTree of Knowledge alone appears to be original.\\nBut the religious motive of our story, its purity,\\nits delicate reserve, its acknowledgment of one\\ngood God and its sense of man s moral relation\\nto God, we do not find in any mythology. The\\nnearest approach to the spirit of our narrative is\\nfound in the religion of Zoroaster, which also is\\na monotheistic and a moral religion. Among the\\nBabylonians we find resemblances in the letter\\nbut not in the spirit. After all is said, the re-\\nsemblances are slight to the vanishing point in\\ncomparison with the differences. Far from\\nvaluing these two chapters of the Bible less,\\nwe should value them more after having com-\\npared them impartially with the best thoughts\\n(^55)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0293.jp2"}, "294": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nof the greatest nations on the subject of the\\ncreation of the world and of man. Our au-\\nthor used material more or less common to the\\nrest of the worlds but the house he reared is\\nall his own, and it is built after a plan the Gen-\\ntiles did not know. We do not think less of\\nMichael Angelo s angel because it is said to be\\nhewn out of a piece of marble on which other\\nartists had tried their skill and failed and when\\nwe see what a form these old myths take in the\\nmind of our writer, how all their impurity, their\\nfolly, their polytheism disappear when they come\\nbefore us as living symbols of deep, spiritual\\ntruths, we feel more than ever that the sacred\\nauthors were well and truly guided, and we mar-\\nvel that they were able to make so much out of\\nso little.\\n(256)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0294.jp2"}, "295": {"fulltext": "Difficulties of Genesis\\nChapter Thirteen:\\nCain and Abel\\nI REMEMBER once hearing Professor\\nFrank Delitzsch say that, easy as the Book\\nof Genesis appears to be, in reahty it is the most\\ndifficuh book in the Bible. The reason which\\nthe venerable scholar gave for this opinion was\\nthat under the garb of the simplest narrative,\\nthis book deals in a masterly way with the deep-\\nest problems. It may be compared to a crystal\\nlake whose waters are so pure that the lake seems\\nshallow until we attempt to fathom it; then the\\nbottom recedes, until we begin to suspect that\\nthere is no bottom. So the Book of Genesis de-\\nceives us by the peculiar lucidity of its style, but\\nthat it is not an easy book to fathom I think we\\nhave already proved. We have now merely cast\\na rapid glance over the general structure of the\\nwork and have touched the most important\\npoints of three chapters. We might go on in-\\ndefinitely studying those wonderful chapters, and\\nyet we could not exhaust their meaning. As the\\nChristian Hfe is said to go from glory to glory,\\nso he who attempts to explain Genesis goes from\\ndifficulty to difficulty. I do not feel at liberty,\\nhowever, to dwell longer on the second and third\\nchapters, of which we have been speaking, and I\\npass to the fourth and fifth chapters, which con-\\n^7 (257)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0295.jp2"}, "296": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ntain the account of Cain and Abel and the names\\nof the antediluvian patriarchs. Before we begin\\nthe study of these chapters, it will help us very\\nmuch to make a brief review of the character of\\ntheir contents.\\nThere is no doubt that a large part of chapter\\nfour was written by the same master who drew\\nfor us the picture of the Garden of Eden and the\\nFall. It deals with the same characters and is\\nwritten in the same style. At the first glance\\nit would seem to be a direct continuation of the\\nthird chapter. Eve brings into the world her\\nfirst children Cain and Abel and the begin-\\nnings of family life and of human progress are\\nnaturally described. And yet there are a few\\nthings which are not altogether consistent with\\nthe supposition that the story of Cain and Abel\\nfollows immediately on the story of the Fall. It\\nstartles us a little to see the custom of sacrifice\\nquietly introduced without a word of explanation\\nand resting on no command of God. Cain s\\nwife also is a rather disconcerting figure. In the\\nnature of the case, she must have been his sister,\\nand with that no one who understands the char-\\nacter of the narrative would dream of taking of-\\nfence. But no sister of Cain is as much as men-\\ntioned. Further, Cain s fear that every one who\\nmeets him will try to kill him surprises us, as no\\none is supposed to be alive at that time except\\nhis parents and his wife. His act in building a\\ncity also produces the impression that other per-\\nsons are living on the earth whose existence is as-\\nsumed, but of whom our Book makes no mention.\\nMany persons have inferred from these incon-\\nsistencies that the Book of Genesis did not pre-\\n(258)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0296.jp2"}, "297": {"fulltext": "Origin of Story of Cain\\ntend that the whole human race was descended\\nfrom Adam and Eve; the very fact that several\\ngenealogies of the first human beings are given\\nseems to prove the contrary. Accordingly, the\\nmyth of the Preadamites has arisen and has re-\\nceived serious attention. I must say, however,\\nthat all such ideas rest on a misconception. It\\nis perfect!}^ true that all human races past and\\npresent cannot be accounted for by the ethno-\\nlogical notices of Genesis, but whether the\\nwriters of Genesis were ethnologists in the mod-\\nern sense is a different question. As to that, there\\nis nothing to show that in their opinion human\\nlife originated in more than one centre. All their\\ngenealogies unquestionably start from Adam and\\nEve as the first man and first woman. The slight\\ninconsistencies we have pointed out, therefore,\\nmust be explained in another way; either they\\nare due to small slips of memory on the part of\\nthe author, or else we have here the remains\\nof several conflicting narratives. As these chap-\\nters are in a rather fragmentar}^ condition, and\\nbear traces of having been pieced together and\\nworked over more than once, I should prefer\\nthe second alternative.\\nThat, however, is the least of our troubles.\\nHow came the story of Cain and Abel to arise at\\nall? Now this may seem a strange question\\nto ask, and it would be strange if we were\\nstanding on firm, historical ground, where\\nthings happen by necessity, or if we were deal-\\ning with distinct traditions of ancient histori-\\ncal events. It seems to me hardly necessary to\\nPreadamites, or a Demonstration of Men before Adam.\\nAlex. Winchell. 2d ed. Chicago, 1880.\\n(259)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0297.jp2"}, "298": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nprove again that this is not the case. No\\nhuman history, no human tradition goes back\\nto the beginning of human Hfe on this earth.\\nIn these chapters, which deal with antedilu-\\nvians living eight or nine hundred years apiece,\\nwith the marriages of angels and men, and with\\ngiants and heroes, we are still in the domain of\\nmyth, not of history. But the pecuHarity of\\nmyth is that it is composed with a purpose, and\\ndoes not arise from the necessity of nature; there-\\nfore we have always a right to inquire what its\\npurpose may be.\\nThe conception which lies behind the story\\nof the fratricide of Cain is very obscure. It is\\ntrue, it shows the development of sin in man.\\nThe disobedience of Adam becomes murder in\\nAdam s son, but that will hardly account for the\\nmurder of Abel. This wonderfully living and\\ndelicate picture did not arise from the mere ab-\\nstract thought that sin grows, and that the sins\\nof fathers are visited on children. It had its\\norigin in something more like itself.\\nFor the same reason I cannot accept uncon-\\nditionally another explanation that is finding\\nmuch favor among scholars at the present time.\\nIt is suggested that many of the personages who\\nare introduced into the early chapters of Genesis,\\nlike Judah, Moab, Edom, etc., were created to\\naccount for the origin of peoples and places bear-\\ning the same names. Every nation was supposed\\nto spring from some man, and hence where no\\nwell-known character was at hand, it was neces-\\nsary to invent one. That is undoubtedly true.\\nIt was in this way, they say, that the story of\\nCain arose. The nucleus out of which the story\\n(260)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0298.jp2"}, "299": {"fulltext": "The Kenites\\ngrew was the mark of Cain, and the curse of\\nGod which condemned him to a Hfe of wandering\\nand vagabondage. Long after, when the Book\\nof Genesis came to be written, the Hebrews\\nwere well acquainted with a people whose\\nstrange, nomadic habits filled them with wonder.\\nThese were the Kenites, or, as we might pro-\\nnounce their name, the Cainites. Of course\\nthey must be descended from a common ances-\\ntor whose name was Cain. The mark (skart)\\naffixed to the person of Cain was probably one\\nof those marks of blood relationship known and\\nrespected by members of the tribe. You will\\nremember that the relations of the Israelites with\\nthe Kenites lasted for a long time. They are\\ndescribed as one of the ten tribes of Palestine\\nin the time of Abraham.* Moses s father-in-law,\\nJethro, was supposed to belong to the tribe of\\nthe Kenites, as was also Heber, the husband of\\nJael. At all times they were a wandering peo-\\nple even as early as when Moses led the flock\\nof Jethro to the back side of the wilderness, f It\\nwould also seem that they were a weak, parasiti-\\ncal tribe, now attached to one stronger people,\\nnow to another. Later on, when most of the\\nother tribes had acquired fixed abodes, they\\nalone could not lay aside their nomadic habit,\\nbut continued to wander from place to place\\nwithout possessions. A very singular account\\nof the Kenites is preserved in the thirty-fifth\\nchapter of Jeremiah, where Jaazaniah and his\\nbrothers refused to drink wine at the invitation\\nof the prophet. Most persons mistake the mean-\\ning of this. The Kenites unwilHngness to drink\\n*Gen. XV. ig. f Exod. iii. i.\\n(261)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0299.jp2"}, "300": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwine did not spring from their dread of intem-\\nperance, but from their aversion to the vine as the\\nsymbol of agriculture and a settled life. The pro-\\nhibition of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, extended\\nnot only to drinking wine, but to the cultivation\\nof the soil and to Hving in houses. They take\\ngreat pains to explain to Jeremiah that it was\\nonly the fear of the Assyrian invasion which had\\ninduced them for a time to forsake their noma-\\ndic life and to take up their abode in Jerusalem.\\nThese things must have struck the Hebrews\\nas very strange, especially since the Kenites\\nlikewise adored Jahveh.* Accordingly it is\\nsaid that to account for the origin of this strange\\npeople, so like themselves in some respects, so\\nunlike in others, the Hebrew writers invented\\nthe story of Cain. They asserted that the pro-\\ngenitor of the Kenite tribe had committed a ter-\\nrible crime, in consequence of which his pos-\\nterity was doomed to wander forever without\\nan abiding resting place.\\nAs the Kenites made this wandering part of\\ntheir religion, it was natural to suppose that it\\nhad been imposed on them by Jahveh. In re-\\ngard to the particular crime committed by Cain,\\nit is well known that the nomads often lived by\\nviolence and plunder, and that they sometimes\\nentered into brotherhood with stable communi-\\nties. Hence Cain is described as the brother of\\nthe shepherd Abel, whom he afterwards slew.\\nThis is certainly a most ingenious explanation. I\\nmention it with respect, because it was proposed\\nby a great scholar,t and because it has been de-\\n*II Kings, xi. 15, and Jerem. xxxv.\\nf J. Wellhansen, Composition des Hex., 10 ff.\\n(262)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0300.jp2"}, "301": {"fulltext": "Wellhausen s Theory\\nfended by other great scholars.* At the same\\ntime, I see grave difficulties in the way of ac-\\ncepting it. Leaving out of sight the fact that\\nin this case the story of Abel s murder arose as\\na mere result of inductive reasoning, and was\\nmanufactured, so to say, out of whole cloth, f\\nwe may very well wonder if the Jehovist would\\nhave considered a mean people like the Kenites\\nof sufficient importance, however peculiar their\\nhabits, to place them at the very beginning of\\nhumanity. There are other grave objections to\\nthis theory as a sufficient explanation of Cain. In\\nthe first place, Cain is represented in Genesis as\\nthe farmer, :t and Abel as the wandering shepherd.\\nSecondly, on this hypothesis, Cain s building\\nthe city would be altogether incomprehensible.\\nIt is veryfplain that this contradictory act must\\nhave some explanation which the wandering life\\nof the Kenites cannot give it. Lastly, it would\\nbe strange, to say the least, for our Jehovist to\\nattempt to derive the Kenites from Cain, since\\non his own showing all Cain s posterity perished\\nin the Flood. A writer must be strangely for-\\ngetful to contradict himself to that extent. It is\\ntrue, the Jehovist does speak of the descendants\\nof Cain Jabal, Jubal and Tubal as the ances-\\ntors of various classes of men alive in his day, but\\nit is to be remembered that these heroes are de-\\nscribed as inventors of arts, not as heads of\\ntribes. The arts may have survived the deluge,\\nthough the inventors perished. Perhaps we\\n*Stade, Z. A. T. W. Kainzeichen, pp. 250-8, 1894.\\nf Holzinger s Genesis, pp. 50 and 51.\\ni I ought to say, however, that the advocates of this theory re-\\ngard Cain the farmer as a totally distinct person, the subject of a\\ndifferent tradition.\\n(263)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0301.jp2"}, "302": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nought not to lay too much stress on an argument\\nof this nature, as it would tax the memory of\\nany historian to bear in mind all the conse-\\nquences of a deluge which was supposed to have\\ncut the history of humanity in two. So, with-\\nout entirely withdrawing this argument, I will\\nadd another of great weight. As we read to\\nthe end of the fourth chapter, we come to the\\ncurious little song of Lamech, which unques-\\ntionably is one of the oldest fragments in the\\nwhole Bible. But in that ancient chant Cain is\\nalready known as a notorious murderer. La-\\nmech compares his murders with Cain s murder.\\nHe considers himself superior to Cain because\\nhe has killed more men. That in itself is con-\\nclusive proof that the story of Cain and Abel is\\nof immense antiquity, and that it is not a manu-\\nfactured tale put together at a late date to ac-\\ncount for the origin of the Kenites.* I find\\nmyself, therefore, unable to accept this ex-\\ntremely ingenious explanation as sufficient in\\nitself to account for the history of Cain and Abel,\\nand I will mention one or two other attempts to\\nsolve this problem which do not fall much behind\\nthe first in keenness of constructive imagination.\\nLenormant t calls attention to the fact that\\nthe Babylonians, like ourselves, divided the year\\ninto twelve months, and that for each month\\nthere was a corresponding sign of the zodiac,\\nabout which many traditions clustered. You\\nwill remember, the twelve tablets of Izdubar are\\nsupposed to be arranged with reference to the\\nThe Mark of Cain, on which Stade and Cheyne lay so\\nmuch stress, they do not succeed in finding among the Kenites.\\nf Beginnings of History, chapter iv.\\n(264)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0302.jp2"}, "303": {"fulltext": "Lenormant s Theory\\nsigns of the zodiac. Now the name of the third\\nmonth in the Babylonian calendar was the\\nmonth of brick-making, and a religious cere-\\nmony accompanied the manufacture of bricks\\nduring this month. The origin of the custom is\\nperfectly plain. During the third month, Sivan\\n(corresponding to parts of May and June), the\\nwater of the Tigris and the Euphrates, which had\\nbeen rising all through March and April, began\\nto fall, and the soft and moist condition of the\\nsoil made it suitable to be moulded into bricks;\\nwhereas, after the sun had baked the clay, it\\nwould be too hard. From this fact and from the\\ncircumstance that religious ceremonies accom-\\npanied the work of brick-making, it would be\\nvery natural that some myth should have arisen\\nin regard to brick-making, connected especially\\nwith the building of a city. That is the first step.\\nThe second is this: The sign of the zodiac\\nfor the third month among the Babylonians, as it\\nstill is among us, was the constellation Gemini,\\nthe sign of the twins. So we see in Babylon, two\\nbrothers were associated with the making of\\nbrick, and perhaps with the building of a city.\\nLenormant, therefore, goes on to collect all the\\nstories he can find of two brothers who united\\nin building a city, one of whom was afterward\\nkilled by the other. The most striking example,\\nin fact the only satisfactory instance, is that of\\nRomulus and Remus. You remember when\\nthese brothers were about to build Rome, Rom-\\nulus wished to build it on one hill, Remus on\\nanother. Naturally each wished to call the\\ncity after his own name. When the augurs de-\\ncided in favor of Romulus, and he had already\\n(265)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0303.jp2"}, "304": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nraised a wall, Remus derisively leaped over it,\\nwhich so incensed his brother that he killed\\nRemus on the spot. To this example Lenor-\\nmant adds several other stories from obscure\\nportions of Greek mythology for example, the\\ntale of the Cabiri and of the Corybantes, of\\nwhom, however, there were three brothers, not\\ntwo. He also cites the old custom of immuring\\na human being in the wall of a city, preferably a\\nvirgin. Lenormant is not able, however, to\\npoint to a story at all like that of Cain and Abel,\\nin Babylonian literature, nor indeed to such a\\nstory in Semitic literature in general.* I am,\\ntherefore, obliged to say that his suggestion of\\na widespread myth in which one brother kills an-\\nother in building a city, fails altogether to supply\\nthe material of the story of Cain and Abel. Such\\na myth may or may not have something to do\\nwith our narrative; in the present condition of\\nour knowledge it is impossible to say. There is\\none circumstance in the history of Cain which\\nseems to strengthen Lenormant s hypothesis.\\nAfter Cain went out from the presence of Jahveh,\\none of his first acts was to build a city, which he\\ncalled after the name of his son Enoch. The\\nbuilding of this city all commentators have felt\\nto be a strange contradiction, as it appears to be\\nin direct violation of the curse that Jahveh had\\njust laid on Cain, which compelled him to lead a\\nwandering life. It would seem from this that\\none old tradition associated Cain with the build-\\nThe best example I can recall is the Phoenician legend\\nascribed by Philo Byblius to Sanchuniathon. There it is stated\\nthat Hypsuranios, founder of Tyre, quarrelled with his brother\\nUsous, though he did not kill Usous. See Cory s Fragments,\\n6 and 7.\\n(266)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0304.jp2"}, "305": {"fulltext": "Budde s Theory\\ning of the first city; but with the building of this\\ncity Abel has nothing to do, as he was already\\ndead, and the city was built in another country.\\nI will mention only one other attempt to solve\\nthis problem. It is that of Professor Budde in\\nhis searching if rather obscure Urgeschich-\\nte. It has at least the merit of being drawn\\ndirectly from the Scripture. If you look at the\\nfourth and fifth chapters of Genesis, you will see\\nthat they contain two genealogical tables of the\\nmen who lived before the Flood. The first traces\\nthe posterity of Cain; the second, the posterity\\nof his younger brother Seth. Of these persons\\nonly some of the descendants of Seth are saved\\nfrom the Flood, while all Cain s posterity perished\\nat that time. Now, it would be very natural for\\npeople to ask why this happened, and the only\\nreason they could very well give for the fact that\\nall the descendants of Cain perished is that Cain\\nhimself, the progenitor of the whole family, must\\nhave been a very wicked person. Evidently it\\nwas on account of some terrible crime of his that\\nall his descendants died a violent death. But in\\nLamech s ancient song we have at least a sugges-\\ntion of what Cain s crime must have been. La-\\nmech compares Cain with himself; but Lamech,\\nby his own confession, was a murderer who had\\nslain at least two men. Plainly, then, Cain must\\nhave been a murderer also. But as Cain is uni-\\nformly represented as the oldest son of Adam,\\nwhom could he have murdered Not his father\\nor his mother, else what would have become of\\nthe human race? It is true he might have mur-\\ndered his sister, but as that would not have been\\nChapter vi., Kain s Brudermord.\\n(267)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0305.jp2"}, "306": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nregarded as so great a crime, it is more natural\\nto suppose that he murdered a brother. The\\nvery name of Cain s living brother, Seth (set in\\nplace of, compensation), seems to imply a third\\nbrother who died young and left no children.\\nEvidently it is he whom Cain murdered. What\\ncould that brother s name have been? Since\\nCain, the first born, had followed his father s call-\\ning and was a farmer, only one other occupa-\\ntion was left for his younger brother. He must\\nhave been a shepherd. But the Hebrew name\\nfor shepherd is Jabal (pronounced Yabal), as\\nLamech s son, the father of all who have cattle,\\nwas actually called. So Cain s brother, by a\\nslight change of sounds, was called Abel, and\\nthat name, which means a breath evanescence\\nwas prophetical of his sad and early demise.\\nBut why did Cain kill him? Lamech tells us,\\nout of revenge. The fault therefore lay alto-\\ngether with Cain. The murder sprang from a\\nwicked heart. But an evil heart is not pleasing\\nto God. What could have driven Cain, then,\\nto this act, except the fact that his brother Abel\\nenjoyed the favor of God, which, on account of\\nhis wicked heart, he did not enjoy? And the\\nfavor of God might be discovered most naturally\\nfrom the way God received the two brothers\\nwhen they appeared before Him. So Budde\\ndiscovers the whole story in the two genealogical\\ntables and the hints contained in the song of\\nLamech. It would be hard to point to a more\\ningenious piece of constructive criticism, but it\\nis safe to say if the story were not before us, no\\none of us would be sharp enough to evoke it out\\nof these small hints.\\n(268)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0306.jp2"}, "307": {"fulltext": "Origin of Story\\nI will not carry the discussion further, because\\nthe problem as it Hes before us cannot be con-\\nclusively solved. Each one of these three in-\\ngenious efforts has something to recommend it,\\nand one of the solutions by no means excludes\\nothers. There seems to have been a very an-\\ncient myth at the bottom of the narrative, as\\nLenormant suggests. The name of Cain may\\nhave been suggested by the Kenites, and their\\ntribal marks and peculiar habits may very well\\nhave contributed to the formation of the story,\\nas Wellhausen asserts; and the murder of Abel\\naccords perfectly with other parts of the fourth\\nand fifth chapters, as Budde so cleverly shows.\\nAbout all that can be asserted with confidence\\nof the origin of the story of Cain and Abel, I\\nthink, is the following:\\n1. That wonderfully graphic and living pic-\\nture did not originate as the result of abstract\\nspeculation to account for the Kenites or the two\\ngenealogies of Cain and Seth, or to prove that\\nsin increases.\\n2. On the contrary, it already existed as a\\npopular story among the Hebrews, and possibly\\namong other peoples of Canaan, long before ab-\\nstract speculation of any sort arose. This is\\nshown conclusively by the allusion to a murder\\ncommitted by Cain in the ancient song of La-\\nmech.\\n3. The touching and beautiful narrative which\\nstands in our Bible is certainly the work of the\\nJehovist who wrote the third chapter of Genesis,\\nas is apparent from several verbal coincidences.*\\nGen. ill. 16 Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall\\nrule over thee. Cf. iv. 7 Unto thee is his desire but thou\\n(269)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0307.jp2"}, "308": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThis writer probably found an old popular myth,\\nwhich he completely transformed.\\n4. As to the origin of this myth, it would be\\nno more than conjecture to assign it either to\\nBabylonia or to Canaan. It would appear, how-\\never, from the fact that the nomadic life was re-\\ngarded as a curse, that the myth was hardly of\\nHebrew origin. The Hebrews, with their splen-\\ndid traditions of the patriarchs, were disposed to\\nregard the nomadic life as the life most worthy\\nof man.\\n5. The names of Cain and Abel appear to have\\nbeen formed originally with reference to the\\nparts they play. Cain, which is interpreted as\\ncreature, or possession, means also a\\nspear, while the name of Abel, breath,\\nnothing, perishableness, was undoubtedly\\ngiven to him in allusion to the fact that he was\\nslain by Cain and had but a fleeting existence.f\\nLet us now go on to the interpretation of the\\nchapter\\nChapter iv. i. And the man knew Havvah, his wife,\\nand she conceived and gave birth ta Cain, and she said,\\nI have gotten a man with Jahveh.\\nBy this play on words (quanah, to acquire,\\nand quain, the acquisition), the author assumes\\nthat Eve spoke Hebrew, just as Adam spoke\\nshouldst rule over him. Gen. iii. 17 Cursed is the ground for thy\\nsake. Cf. iv. II Cursed art thou from the ground. Gen. iii. 9\\n(After Adam s sin), where art thou Cf. iv. 9 Where is Abel, thy\\nbrother\\n*Dillmann, Gen., i. 183.\\nf Dillmann, Gen., i. 184. Schrader derives Abel from the\\nBabylonian Habal, which means son, a not uncommon proper\\nname. Cheyne regards the first meaning of Cain as artificer.\\nEncycl. Biblica, art. Cain.\\n(270)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0308.jp2"}, "309": {"fulltext": "Cain s Offering\\nHebrew when he called his wife s name Hav-\\nvah.* The expression I have gotten a man\\nwith Jahveh is a curious one. The natural\\ntranslation would be, I have obtained Jahveh\\nas a husband, which would be meaningless, so\\nwe must rather understand it, I have gotten\\na man-child with the help and blessing of Jah-\\nveh.\\n2. And again she gave birth to his brother, Abel; and\\nAbel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain was a farmer.\\nIt is not definitely stated that Cain and Abel\\nwere twins. The childhood of Cain and Abel is\\nnot mentioned. When they come before us\\nagain they are both men how old we are not\\ntold; but from Abel s name, and from the fact\\nthat he had no wife nor children, it would appear\\nthat he died very young. Only the two oldest\\noccupations known to civiHzed man could well\\nbe spoken of here. Cain, the elder, naturally fol-\\nlows his father s calling, so nothing is left for\\nAbel but the care of the flocks.\\n3. It happened after a number of days that Cain presented\\nto Jahveh an offering of the fruits of the ground. And\\nAbel also presented to Him an offering of the first born\\nof his flock and especially their fat pieces.\\nStrange to say, the idea of making an ofYering\\nto Jahveh seems to have originated with Cain.\\nIt is not said that God demanded this gift, which\\nappears to have been entirely voluntary on Cain s\\npart. It therefore seems a little hard that Cain s\\npresent should have been rejected altogether.!\\nAddis, Documents of the Hexateuch, p. 7, note 2.\\nf The offering of sacrifice to Jahveh, so naturally introduced,\\nindicates a much more advanced condition of human development\\nthan the stage we have reached.\\n(271)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0309.jp2"}, "310": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nIn connection with Abers offering we might ex-\\npect some allusion to the discovery of fire; and\\nthe absolute silence of Genesis as to this first and\\nmost important of human discoveries indicates\\nthat we are not dealing here with genuinely\\nprimitive myths. The offering of man s first\\ngift to God, freely and willingly rendered, to\\nsatisfy the need of man s heart, is beautifully in-\\ntroduced.\\n4, 5. And Jahveh looked with favor on Abel and his\\noffering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with\\nfavor.\\nWhy was this? It surely did not He in the\\nnature of the gifts themselves, as Lenormant\\nthinks,* as if the bloody sacrifice of an animal\\nwere more pleasing to Jahveh than the fruit of\\nthe field. In that case, even if Jahveh preferred\\nAbel s gift, he need not have rejected Cain s\\naltogether. Each brought what he had Cain\\nhis fruits, Abel his lambs. The reason why Jah-\\nveh accepted the one and rejected the other was\\nnot on account of the gift itself, nor because\\nCain was ignorant of the correct order of ritual,\\nbut because Jahveh discovered sin lurking in the\\nheart of Cain. Therefore He would not accept\\nhis offering. Exactly how Jahveh exhibited His\\nacceptance of Abel s gift and His rejection of\\nCain s we are not told. Probably by one of those\\nsigns by which sacrifices were considered of good\\nor evil omen.\\n5. And Cain became burning hot, and his countenance\\nfell [i.e., it drooped with the air of one who is vexed and\\ndejected], f\\nBeginnings of History, p. 174. f Dillmann.\\n(272)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0310.jp2"}, "311": {"fulltext": "God s Compassion for Cain\\nBut though Jahveh has rejected Cain s offer-\\ning, He has by no means rejected Cain. He\\nmakes at once an earnest effort to recall Cain to\\nHimself and to induce him to resist sin. This\\nis one of the most beautiful touches in the story.\\nGod does not leave Cain to himself until his mur-\\nderous purpose ripens. He pleads with him as\\nHe pleads with all tempted men. It is a fine\\ntouch and worthy of our author that he enter-\\ntains no fatalistic notion that Adam s sin has de-\\nscended on Cain. On the contrary, Cain is free\\nto do right. The only argument God uses with\\nCain is the solemn you ought, and if he ought,\\nthen he can. God s language to Cain is kind and\\naffectionate.\\n6, 7. And Jahveh said to Cain, Why art thou angry? and\\nwhy has thy countenance fallen?. If thou doest well, shall\\nit not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin crouches\\nbefore the door, and its appetite is turned on thee, but thou\\nshouldst rule over it.\\nSin is here described as a wild beast ready to\\nspring on Cain and devour him a figure that\\nwell describes the fierce outburst of his wrath.\\nIt somewhat surprises us to hear a house-door\\nmentioned; evidently this is a little slip. It is\\namazing in this early work to see the pity of God\\naltogether turned toward Cain, not toward Abel.\\nGod knows that the murderer, even more than\\nthe victim, needs His compassion. Cain, in\\nthe meantime, answers nothing. He is moved\\nneither by pleading nor by warning. He is\\nnursing his black wrath against his brother until\\nhe shall have the opportunity to strike.\\n8. And Cain said unto Abel, his brother.\\n18 (273)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0311.jp2"}, "312": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nWhat he said is not given. Several ancient\\nversions add\\nLet us go into the fields.\\nThe unsuspecting Abel accepts the invitation,\\nfearing no evil.\\nAnd it came to pass when they were in the field that Cain\\narose against Abel his brother and killed him.\\nInstantly the voice of Jahveh is heard again,\\nnot now pleading, but asking Cain an awful ques-\\ntion.\\n9. And Jahveh said to Cain, Where is Abel, thy\\nbrother?\\nCain, however, is still obdurate. He thinks,\\nperhaps, that Jahveh does not know. If so, he\\nwill not confess. So he replies with a lie, and\\nadds to it an insolent sneer. How much more\\nhardened and wicked Cain has become than\\nAdam was\\nAnd he said, I do not know. Am I my brother s\\nkeeper?\\nAm I my brother s keeper? There are few\\nverses in the Bible that cut deeper intc the con-\\nscience than this. What of those with whom\\nwe have sinned, whom we have tempted, whose\\nhappiness we have stolen? Do we imagine we\\nshall never hear God calling us to a sharp and\\nterrible account for them? Why should we\\ncare? They were responsible for themselves.\\nThat is precisely what Cain said. He denied all\\nresponsibility for Abel, but at that moment he\\n(274)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0312.jp2"}, "313": {"fulltext": "Cain s Punishment\\nwas responsible for Abel s death. This time,\\nhowever, the terrible voice will not be silenced.\\nIt says to him\\n10, II. What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother s\\nblood is crying to me from the ground. And now thou art\\ndriven by a curse from the ground which has opened its\\nmouth to receive thy brother s blood from thy hand.\\nThis is not intended figuratively, but literally.\\nThe earth, like a living being, is described as\\nopening her lips to drink Abel s spilt blood,\\nwhich informs Jahveh of the murder by crying\\naloud to Him in pain. No more will the earth\\nyield her genial fruits to the murderer. For\\nhim henceforth she is barren a terrible descrip-\\ntion of the iron world in which the criminal lives,\\nand of the way existence itself casts him off.\\n12, 13. When thou tillest the ground it shall no more\\nyield to thee its strength. A wanderer and a fugitive shalt\\nthou be on the earth. And Cain said to Jahveh, The\\npunishment of my iniquity is too great for me to bear.\\nThe Fathers translated this, My sin is too\\ngreat to be forgiven. That would be a finer\\nand a holier thought, but it is not Cain s thought.\\nHe is broken by fear, not by sorrow. He still\\nthinks only of himself, not of Abel nor of God s\\nforgiveness.\\n14. Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the\\nface of the ground, and from thy face I shall be hid, and I\\nshall be a wanderer and a fugitive on the earth, and it will\\nhappen that whoever finds me will slay me.\\nBy reason of the curse Jahveh has laid on the\\ncultivated ground it will no longer yield Cain a\\nliving. He is, therefore, obliged to relinquish\\n(275)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0313.jp2"}, "314": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nhis home and his agriculture and must become\\na wanderer. The expression from thy face I\\nshall be hidden is a curious one. It implies\\nthat Jahveh dwells in only one land, and that as\\nsoon as Cain leaves this country Jahveh will see\\nhim and protect him no more. The author\\nseems insensibly to regard the land where these\\nevents took place as Palestine, the country of\\nJahveh. There some respect for human life ex-\\nists, but outside of Palestine manners are wild\\nand rough, and the law of the desert is revenge\\nfor blood. That the author has before his mind\\na more advanced state of society than the story\\nadmits is further proved by Cain s dread of being\\nslain.\\n15. And Jahveh said to Cain, Therefore whoever mur-\\nders Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.\\nJahveh admits the reasonableness of Cain s\\nfear and takes precautions against the danger.\\nAnd Jahveh set a mark on Cain, lest any one finding him\\nshould smite him.\\nThis mark is not a mere sign or pledge of Jah-\\nveh s promise, like the sudden breaking out of\\nthe sun (Rabbi Jehuda), or a warning placard\\nwhich Jahveh wrote and set up somewhere, but\\na mark affixed to Cain s person. What the na-\\nture of that sign was we are not told. Some\\nhave thought of a horn fastened to Cain s fore-\\nhead, others, of leprosy on his face, or of some\\nother horrifying and repulsive physical stigma.\\nThe sign, however, was not intended to brand\\nCain as a murderer, but to warn those who saw\\nhim not to hurt him.*\\nDillmann.\\n(276)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0314.jp2"}, "315": {"fulltext": "Land of Nod\\ni6. And Cain went out from the face of Jahveh, and dwelt\\nin the land of Nod, in front of Eden.\\nNod was not any particular country, any more\\nthan the Garden of Eden is. It means land of\\nwandering, and merely describes further Cain s\\nfugitive and miserable life.\\n(277)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0315.jp2"}, "316": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Fourteen:\\nT^he Antediluvian Patriarchs,\\nWE come now to one of those passages\\nwhich prove conclusively that the Book\\nof Genesis is a composite work, a Mosaic, in this\\nsense at least, that it was formed at different\\ntimes by different hands, not following alto-\\ngether the same plan.\\nImmediately following the story of Cain and\\nAbel are three genealogical tables, whose pur-\\npose is to trace the descent of mankind from\\nAdam and Eve, and to give us the names of the\\npatriarchs who lived before the Flood. The\\nfirst of these tables also describes the beginnings\\nof human culture and the discovery of the arts.\\nNow, of all things in the world, genealogies are\\nto most persons the least interesting. St. Paul,\\namong others, felt a great repugnance to this\\nkind of literature, and particularly warned Tim-\\nothy to pay no attention to fables and endless\\ngenealogies, which minister questions rather\\nthan godly edifying. In saying this St. Paul\\nwell knew what he was talking about. All an-\\ncient genealogies are crammed full of fables, and\\nthere is scarcely anything that gives rise to so\\nmany questions. The provoking thing about\\nthese questions is that they can hardly ever be\\n*i Tim. i. 4.\\n(278)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0316.jp2"}, "317": {"fulltext": "Three Genealogical Tables\\nanswered satisfactorily. These three genealo-\\ngies, in particular, open the door to a world of\\ninquiry, to do justice to which would require a\\nlarge work. I shall therefore deal with this sub-\\nject more superficially than I have dealt as yet\\nwith any part of our task, and content myself\\nwith attempting to solve the main problems,\\nmerely indicating some of the innumerable sec-\\nondary questions which arise on every side.\\nThe passages involved consist of the remainder\\nof the fourth chapter following the story of Cain,\\nand the whole of the fifth chapter. The first\\ntable traces the descent of Cain; the second,t\\nwhich is much mutilated and very brief, origi-\\nnally traced the descent of mankind from Seth\\nwhile the third table,:]: which is the fullest, also\\ntraces the descent through Seth.\\nLooking for a moment at the three tables, we\\nsee that the first table traces the posterity of Cain\\nthrough seven generations, where it suddenly\\nbreaks ofT. The names of the patriarchs in-\\ncluding their progenitor Adam are written\\nin our English Bible thus Adam, Cain, Enoch,\\nIrad, Mehujael, Methusael and Lamech. From\\nLamech the line of descent, which has been\\nsingle, divides into three branches in his three\\nsons, Jabal, Jubal and Tubal, and there is also a\\ndaughter, Naamah.\\nThe second tree is a very short one because\\nalmost all its branches have been lopped off. It\\nbegins again with Adam.\\nChapter iv. 25. And Adam knew his wife again, and\\nshe bare a son and called his name Seth.\\n*Gen. ivo 17-22. f Gen. iv. 25, 26. Gen. v.\\n(279)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0317.jp2"}, "318": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nSeth s posterity, as I have said, is very briefly\\nnoticed in this^ account. We are only told that\\na son was born to him named Enos; then this\\ngenealogy is cut short to make room for the\\nthird table, which is by a different hand. It is\\nthe work of the Priestly Writer, the author of\\nthe first chapter of Genesis, who reappears here\\n(chapter v.) with his usual introduction, This\\nis the book of the generations, with his mo-\\nnotonous style and his oft-repeated formulae, all\\nwhich are impossible to mistake.\\nChapter v. i, 2, 3. This is the book of the genealogy of\\nAdam: in the day that God created man, in the likeness of\\nGod made He him; male and female created He them, and\\nblessed them, and called their name Adam [i.e., man], in\\nthe day when they were created. And Adam lived one\\nhundred and thirty years and begot a son in his own like-\\nness, after his image, and called his name Seth.\\n4. And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth\\nwere eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.\\n5. And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred\\nand thirty years, and he died.\\nSo, without a particle of change of style, and\\nwithout comment on the lives and deeds of these\\nantediluvians who, with the sole exception of\\nEnoch, seem expressly created to beget children,\\nto live an enormous period, and to die, the narra-\\ntive goes on to Noah. Then, one verse occurs\\nwhich does not seem to belong in the place where\\nit stands, but which appears once to have formed\\nthe end of the mutilated second table of the Jeho-\\nvist document, both from the fact that it contains\\nthe name Jahveh, and for other reasons that I\\nwill not now state.\\nChapter v. 29. And he (Lamech) called his name Noah,\\nsaying, The same shall comfort us concerning our work\\nand toil of our hands, because of the ground which Jahveh\\nhas cursed.\\n(280)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0318.jp2"}, "319": {"fulltext": "Ancient Genealogies\\nGoing back to our third genealogy of the\\nPriestly Writer, we find his tree to be as follows\\nAdam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared,\\nEnoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and Shem,\\nHam and Japheth, the sons of Noah. Now\\nthere are several things to which I must call your\\nattention at once. From Adam to the Flood,\\naccording to the first genealogy, there are seven\\ngenerations; and from Adam to the Flood, ac-\\ncording to the third table, there are ten genera-\\ntions. The first line divides with Lamech into\\nthree branches Jabal, Jubal and Tubal and\\nthe line of the third table divides with Noah into\\nthree branches Shem, Ham and Japheth.\\nI ought to say at the outset that such attempts\\nto trace the descent of the men who were sup-\\nposed to live before the Flood are very numer-\\nous in ancient literature. Almost all such gene-\\nalogies are constructed on the same principle,\\nand consist of either seven or ten generations\\nseven and ten being sacred and favorite num-\\nbers. In Chaldea we have the genealogy of Be-\\nrosus, beginning with Alorus, and tracing his\\ndescent through nine other mythical kings to\\nXisuthros,* the Babylonian Noah.* This tradi-\\ntion has been preserved in three forms, through\\nAlexander Polyhistor, Apollodorus and Aby-\\ndenus,t but they all agree in making the kings\\nbefore the Deluge ten in number, and the total\\nlength of their reigns, which are separately cal-\\nculated, covers the enormous period of 120 Sari,\\nor 432,000 years. This, on an average, would\\ngive the antediluvians a reign of 43,200 years\\nCory s Fragments, pp. 30 and 31,\\nf Ibid., pp. 26 to 33.\\n(281)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0319.jp2"}, "320": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\napiece, in comparison with which the figures of\\nGenesis are exceedingly modest. These kings\\nare probably all mythical personages.\\nAmong the Hindus the Mahabharata speaks\\nof seven Maharshis, or great saints of antiquity.*\\nWe hear also of seven Pragapati, or patriarchs.\\nThe Laws of Manu, f in describing the Creation,\\nfirst mention by name ten great sages and then\\nseven other Manus of measureless power. The\\nsame system of dividing the first age of the world\\namong ten mythical kings is found among the\\nPersians, and also, I believe, among the Chinese\\nand the Egyptians. if It would not repay us to\\nplunge into the obscure mythologies of these\\nnations, but the mere fact that a mythical tra-\\ndition of seven or ten patriarchs exists every-\\nwhere, proves that our two lists do not rest\\non history, but on an almost universal tradi-\\ntion. Among the Gentiles these seven or\\nten patriarchs are of divne origin or charac-\\nter. So they may once nave been among the\\nHebrews. At present, however, almost all their\\nmythical qualities have disappeared, and they\\ncome before us as men. Several rather crude\\nattempts have been made to give these patriarchs\\na place in the Pantheon of the nations [Enoch is\\nthe sun god; Tubal Cain, Vulcan; Jubal, Apollo;\\nNoa(c)h, lacchos, etc.],\u00c2\u00a7 but these suggestions\\nhave borne no fruits; the Priestly Writer has\\ndone his work too well.\\nPractically the only thing that separates the\\nWilson s Vishnu Parana, pp. 23, 49, note,\\nfi- 34-36.\\n:J: Not, however, in Manetho. See Lenormant, 230, 231.\\nBochart, Buttmann, and others. See especially Buttmann s\\nMytholoo^ie, i. eh. 7.\\n(282)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0320.jp2"}, "321": {"fulltext": "Longevity Explained\\nantediluvians in Genesis from the rest of human-\\nity is their great age. The most Hberal physi-\\nologists estimate the extreme longevity of man\\nat about two hundred years probably no human\\nbeing has ever attained that age. But to the\\nfable that human life may endure nine hundred or\\nnine hundred and fifty years, physiology will not\\nlisten. A very old psalm ascribed to Moses\\nestimates the duration of human life as seventy or\\neighty years the days of our age are three-\\nscore years and ten, etc. It is useless to think\\nof simpler and better food, or that the word\\nused for year does not mean a year in our sense.\\nNo food, however simple, will sustain human\\nlife for nine hundred years, and the word used\\nfor year means twelve months and nothing else.\\nThis difficulty, which exists only in the Priestly\\nWriter s document, not in that of the Jehovist,\\nwho says nothing about ages, arose in a very sim-\\nple manner. The Priestly Writer had before him A\\nto begin with, exaggerated traditions, which the\\nHebrews shared with other nations, beside which\\nhis own statements are modest enough. Apart\\nfrom this, he was obliged by custom and tradi-\\ntion to divide the first age of the world, from the\\nCreation to the Flood, among not more than ten\\nmen. Unless he had made their ages very long,\\nthe age of the world would have been absurdly\\nshort, lasting but a few hundred years. These\\nconsiderations and the universal belief, not ap-\\nparently founded on fact, that the earlier genera-\\ntions of men lived much longer than we,\\nsufficiently explain the longevity of the patri-\\narchs. But these facts, and also the manner in\\nPsalm xc.\\n(283)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0321.jp2"}, "322": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwhich both our genealogies at the end divide\\ninto three branches, prove conclusively that they\\nare artificial productions, not history. This im-\\npression will be strengthened by a study of the\\ngenealogies themselves.\\nWhen we compare the two longer genealo-\\ngies (the first and the third), what surprises us\\nmost is their great similarity. Two of the names\\nare inverted in order. Several names are spelled\\nsomewhat differently in the two lists, but on the\\nwhole they are very much alike. If before the\\nfirst genealogy of Cain we place the second, or\\nshort, genealogy of Seth with Noah at the end,\\nwe should have almost a dupHcate of the third\\ngenealogy.\\n(2) Adam (3) Adam\\nSeth\\nSeth\\nEnos\\nEnos\\n(i) Cain\\nCainan\\nEnoch\\nMahalaleel\\nIrad\\nJared\\nMehujael\\nEnoch\\nMethusael\\nMethuselah\\nLemech\\nLamech\\n.Noah\\nNoah\\nIt seems to me that any one comparing these\\ntwo lists would suppose that they represent only\\ntwo genealogies of the same family, in which, as\\noften happens, a few names have become dis-\\narranged and a few are misspelled. And yet,\\naccording to the statements of Genesis, they re-\\npresent for the most part two entirely different\\nfamilies. One is the family of the murderer\\n(284)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0322.jp2"}, "323": {"fulltext": "Cain and Seth\\nCain, and the other is the family of the pious\\nSeth. Further than that we have to remember\\nthat these two genealogies belong to two en-\\ntirely separate documents. Whoever originally\\ncomposed them, one is part of the work of the\\nJehovist or the Elohist, and the other belongs\\nto the Priestly Writer. I shall not stop now to\\nexamine the names themselves, or to inquire\\nwhich is the more original form, or what the\\nnames signify. Unfortunately, our knowledge\\nis still too imperfect to enable us to perform this\\ntask satisfactorily. Scholars are not agreed as\\nto whether several of these names are Hebrew\\nwords at all, and as to their meanings there is\\nmuch difference of opinion. Leaving, then,\\nthese questions, and merely continuing our com-\\nparison, the only conclusion we can come to is\\nthat these two lists of antediluvian patriarchs\\n(the first and the third), so astonishingly ahke,\\nrepresent two distinct Hebrew traditions one\\nderiving the race, in part, at least, through Cain,\\nand the other through Seth. It will be noticed\\nthat Cain appears in the third list also under the\\nname of Cainan as the great-grandson of Adam,\\nand that the Jehovist also mentions Seth as\\nAdam s son, although a later son. These two\\ntables, therefore, must have been originally pre-\\npared without reference to each other, in ac-\\ncordance with the two ancient traditions. Each\\nattempted to preserve a list of the patriarchs who\\nlived before the Flood, and those lists, as we have\\nseen, are very similar.* The editor, or Redactor,\\nThe reason why this similarity surprises ns is because we er-\\nroneously regard these genealogies as historical, which they are not.\\nDid they really exhibit the descent of two different men (Seth and\\n(285)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0323.jp2"}, "324": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nof Genesis simply found them in two different\\ndocuments and placed them side by side without\\nany attempt to reconcile them, which it would\\nhave been impossible for him to do without re-\\nwriting them and taking great liberties with ven-\\nerable names too well known to be altered. With\\nthese words of explanation, let us pass on to the\\ngenealogies themselves, and I think it will be best\\nto speak of the third table first. That, you re-\\nmember, is the work of the Priestly Writer; it\\nbegins with the fifth chapter, This is the book\\nof the genealogy of Adam.\\nIn order to understand the general purpose\\nof this genealogy, and the point of view of the\\nwriter, I must remind you of several curious\\nfacts. The fifth chapter, with the exception of\\none verse, is the work of the great author of the\\nfirst chapter of Genesis. There is no reason to\\nsuppose that anything has been lost out of this\\npart of his composition. His two chapters have\\nbeen cut in two by the introduction of the Jeho-\\nvist s story of Adam and Eve, Eden, the Fall,\\nthe story of Cain and Abel, and Cain s genealogy.\\nIf the work of the Priestly Writer stood as he\\nwrote it, then directly after the account of the\\ncreation of man and the consecration of the sev-\\nenth day this genealogy would follow. His first\\nchapter ends, This is the genealogy of the\\nheaven and of the earth when they are created,\\nand his second chapter (Chapter v.) begins,\\nThis is the book of the genealogy of Adam.\\nThe consequences of all this it is very important\\nCain), the recurrence of the same names would be unaccountable.\\nAs it is we must sincerely regard these two genealogies as slightly\\ndiverging traditions of the antediluvian world.\\n(286)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0324.jp2"}, "325": {"fulltext": "Degeneration of Patriarchs\\nto bear in mind. The Priestly Writer has not\\nsaid a word about the Garden of Eden, about\\nEve or the serpent or the first sin. He knows\\nnothing of Cain and Abel or of Cain s murder.\\nHe does not regard Cain as Adam s son at all,\\nbut as his great-grandchild. Therefore, in\\nreading his second chapter, we must remember\\nthat he does not take all these things into ac-\\ncount. He wishes merely to continue his nar-\\nrative, which he has carried only as far as the\\ncreation of man and woman, and he now goes on\\nto describe that man s descendants. Bearing\\nthese facts in mind, we get quite a new impres-\\nsion of this chapter. These genealogies with\\nthe Priestly Writer lead directly to his story of\\nthe great Flood. They are his bridge, and his\\nonly bridge, between his account of man s crea-\\ntion in the image of God and man s destruction\\nin the Flood, in consequence of his sin. It would\\ntherefore be very natural if we should receive in\\nthe genealogy itself some hint of the growing\\nwickedness of men which provoked God at last\\nto destroy almost the whole human race. The\\nostensible purpose of his table, of course, is to\\nshow what men lived before the Flood and how\\nlong the world itself existed. He accomplishes\\nthe latter by carefully noting how old each patri-\\narch was at the birth of his first son, and how\\nlong each lived afterward; and from these data\\nwe can not only compute which of the patriarchs\\nwere alive at a particular time, but in what year\\nof the world each was born and died, and in what\\nyear the Flood came. Unfortunately, this al-\\nready complicated question is further compli-\\ncated. We possess no fewer than three different\\n(387)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0325.jp2"}, "326": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nversions of this chapter; namely, the Hebrew\\ntext, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Penta-\\nteuch,* each of which computes the hves of the\\npatriarchs differently, and so each comes to a\\ndifferent result in regard to the date of the Flood.\\nThis difference, moreover, is quite serious, for\\nwhile the Samaritan Pentateuch places the date\\nof the Flood in the year of the world 1307, the\\nHebrew text sets it in the year 1656, and the\\nSeptuagint as late as 2242. I will simply say\\nthat the Septuagint text is most evidently cor-\\nrupt, and that between the Hebrew text and the\\nSamaritan probably the majority of recent schol-\\nars decide in favor of the Samaritan, f\\nAccepting the statement of the Samaritan\\nPentateuch that the Flood took place in the year\\n1307, which is derived from its calculation of the\\nages of the patriarchs, Budde makes a very inte-\\nresting discovery. Jared, Methuselah and La-\\nmech all died in the Flood year, in the year 1307,\\nas may be seen by glancing at the table. This\\nis certainly significant. As Budde says (whom\\nI follow here), if in tracing the history of any old\\nGerman family we learned that all branches\\nsave one disappeared in the year 1349 a. d., we\\nshould not hesitate to infer that the whole family\\nexcept one branch had been swept away by the\\nBlack Death, which ravaged Europe in that year.\\nAfter Ezra, 444 B.C.\\nf E.g., Berthau, Dillmann, Budde, and Addis. The chief\\nreasons adduced are as follows r. Greater regularity in Samaritan\\nPentateuch in ages at birth of first son and of entire life. 2. A\\ngradual diminution of age, except in cases of Noah and Enoch.\\n3. The Samr.ritan Pentateuch, which was translated from the\\nHebrew, would have been more apt to add to the years, after the\\nmanner of the Septuagint, than to diminish them. See Budde,\\nUrgeschichte, p. 91. Addis, ii. 199.\\n(288)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0326.jp2"}, "327": {"fulltext": "Table of Patriarchs\\nQ\\nis s i\\nli, u c o\\nO M O O M l^vO w vo vO\\nO O M N c^ Tf Ovo O O vo\\na^ o w csi N f ^oo fTi co^ o\\nQ\\nCO H o M Ovo o o r^ lo\\no^ cj^ a^ oco o^ CO o t^ o^\\nU l\\nS o\\nOt^vnOOOOMxnO\\nOOMTtcnOOcoOiri\\noooooooocococor^iT)\\n0 ^00u-)(Nmt^(N00\\nc O O r~^0 vO o CO oo o O\\nMM M M M ID M\\nQ\\nri 1/3\\n.i: 2 o\\nO M vnO u^r^voO coO\\nCO M O l-l O^ ^O M IT) in\\nO^ O^ O^ c oo CO CO r^O O\\nOi^iJ^OO J^OcooO\\nOOMr^COCOOu^O\\nCO CO 00 CO CO r^ coo O\\nJ3 3\\nw c4 coTj-iovd r^od c 6\\no\\n1^ S.S S-df^ti\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2a c rt c ^S^\\n(289)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0327.jp2"}, "328": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nSo, when we discover in the genealogy that\\nJared, Methuselah and Lamech all disappeared\\nin the Flood year, and further, as the Flood oc-\\ncurred on the seventeenth day of the second\\nmonth, that they all must have died within the\\nfirst three months of that year, the conclusion\\nis almost forced upon us that they did not die a\\nnatural death, but were swept away in the Flood.\\nBut if that were the case, it was undoubtedly be-,\\ncause they were sinners. So, a new and most\\ninteresting purpose of this dry chapter begins to\\nbe revealed. The author, as I have said, knew\\nnothing of the Garden of Eden and of the sin of\\nAdam and Cain. He does not regard Cain as\\nAdam s son, but he must still give some hint of\\nthe cause of the Flood, and the hint this genealogy\\ncontains is that men were first good, but began\\nto degenerate until the Flood swept them away.\\nThis impression is strengthened when we look\\nat his table a little more carefully. Jared, Me-\\nthuselah and Lamech the sixth, eighth and\\nninth patriarchs apparently were destroyed in\\nthe Flood. Why was not Enoch also destroyed\\nHe came between Jared and Methuselah, and\\nwas born in the year of the world 522. If he had\\nattained the span of life allotted to his contem-\\nporaries, or if he had even lived eight hundred\\nyears, he would have been overtaken by the\\nsame fate. Even an early death would not have\\nsaved him from the imputation of unrighteous-\\nness, for an early death was regarded as a sign\\nof God s displeasure. Accordingly, Enoch did\\nnot die at all. In the author s beautiful expres-\\nsion, He was not, for God took him. And\\nwhy did God take him away from the coming\\n(290)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0328.jp2"}, "329": {"fulltext": "Enoch s Translation\\nevil? Because he walked with God, he was a\\nrighteous man. But his father, son, and grand-\\nson God did not take. He let them drown, and\\nthe suspicion certainly attaches itself that God let\\nthem drown because they were wicked. There\\nis no doubt that Enoch occupied a distinguished\\nplace among the patriarchs. He was the Sev-\\nenth always an honorable number. The Apos-\\ntle Jude calls especial attention to this fact when\\nhe says, And Enoch, also, the Seventh from\\nAdam, prophesied. Delitzsch has observed\\nthat at the time of Enoch s translation most\\nof the patriarchs were living, but if we follow\\nthe computation of the Samaritan Pentateuch,\\nthe argument becomes much stronger, for they\\nwere all alive. According to the Samaritan,\\nEnoch was translated in the year 887. Even\\nAdam survived him by forty-three years, and at\\nthe time of Enoch s translation Noah was one\\nhundred and eighty years old. Enoch s mar-\\nvellous translation occurred before the eyes of\\nall, as a consolation to the good and as a warning\\nand threat to the evil. All this points to the fact\\nthat the earher patriarchs, who lived a long Hfe\\nand departed in peace, were good, but that the\\nlater patriarchs who, with the exceptions of\\nEnoch and Noah, were drowned in the Flood,\\nwere evil. This impression is strengthened by\\nthe names of the later patriarchs as they are usu-\\nally interpreted. Jared, the father of Enoch,\\nmeans descent, here, falling off, deterio-\\nration. Methuselah is interpreted man of a\\ndart, i. e., of violence. Lamech, whose name\\nis variously explained, according to the oldest\\ntraditions was a man of bloodshed and murder.\\n(291)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0329.jp2"}, "330": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nAll this throws a brilliant light on the genealogy\\nof the Priestly Writer. I repeat, this writer had\\nnothing to say of the original fall of man, or of\\nthe murder of Abel. He was therefore obHged\\nto account for the coming of the Flood in a dif-\\nferent way, and he does account for it differently.\\nBy the very arrangement of his genealogical\\ntable he indicates the growing wickedness of the\\nantediluvians with the exception of Enoch and\\nNoah, of whom Enoch was taken away from the\\ncoming evil, and Noah was preserved alive in it.\\nIt is also plain that this author was ignorant of\\nor rejected the genealogy of Cain related by the\\nJehovist, or he would not have ascribed almost\\nthe same posterity to Seth. There is, therefore,\\nno contrast between the wicked Cainites and the\\npious Sethites, as so many writers have imagined.\\nAll this is interesting and important as far as it\\ngoes, and yet the veil of mystery that hangs\\nover those ancient names Enoch, Mahalaleel,\\nJared and Methuselah is not lifted. Whether\\nthey were men at all, and, if so, who they were\\nand what they did, probably we shall never\\nknow. As I said, all comparisons with the\\nheroes and demigods of other nations, thus far,\\nhave failed to establish any certain connections.\\nEnoch, from the strange manner of his transla-\\ntion, and from his 365 years, has been supposed\\nto be a solar deity but what weakens this com-\\nparison is the fact that the Hebrew year, which\\nwas reckoned by the moon, contained only 354\\ndays, while the Babylonian year consisted of 360\\ndays. These matters are discussed with a wealth\\nof example by Lenormant.*\\nBeginnings of History, chapters v. and vi.\\n(292)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0330.jp2"}, "331": {"fulltext": "The First Genealogy\\nI turn now to the genealogy of Cain, which\\nI have called the first table. It occurs in the\\ndocument of the Jehovist (Gen. iv. 17-24),\\nthough whether it comes from his pen or is the\\nwork of the Elohist I leave undetermined. We\\nshall see immediately that this is a very different\\ncomposition from the dry list of the Priestly\\nWriter, from which everything has been care-\\nfully expurgated but the names and ages of the\\npatriarchs. Properly speaking, these verses are\\nnot so much a genealogy as a little family history\\nof the descendants of Cain, containing interest-\\ning notices of their progress in civilization and\\nin the invention of the arts. There is no reason\\nto suppose that this curious piece of literature,\\nwhich is very ancient, was composed outright\\nby the Jehovist or the Elohist. To assume this\\nwould be to deny its value as a very early tradi-\\ntion. On the contrary, the Jehovist, or the\\nElohist, found this old document, which had\\nbeen in existence for a long time, and incor-\\nporated it into his work, probably altering it a\\ngood deal, and omitting those crudely mytho-\\nlogical allusions which offended his religious\\nsense. The most important question is, with\\nwhat intention was this genealogy of Cain orig-\\ninally composed? Did the author regard Cain\\nas a bad man and a murderer? And was it\\noriginally written with reference to the Flood I\\nam inclined to answer both these questions in the\\nnegative. If, as we believe, this Httle document\\nis very old, Cain s murder would not be regarded\\nin the light in which we regard it. We see in the\\ndocument itself how such acts of violence are\\ntreated in Lamech s song. Lamech boasts of\\n(293)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0331.jp2"}, "332": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nhaving killed two men, and he praises rather\\nthan blames Cain for having avenged himself in\\nthe same manner. Moreover, there is a marked\\ncontradiction between the Cain of this genealogy\\nand the Cain who just before slew Abel. So\\nmarked, in fact, that we are entitled to regard\\nthem as two different men.* For that act Cain\\nwas condemned by God to a miserable life of\\nwandering. Here, on the contrary, the first\\nthing Cain does is to build a city, and the noma-\\ndic life is regarded as far from miserable. There\\nis no attempt in the genealogy to show a develop-\\nment of sin among men in a way that would\\naccount for the Flood. It would be very natural,\\nin case this genealogy were merely the continu-\\nation of the story of the Fall and the murder of\\nAbel, for the author to show a growth of sin in\\nCain s children. On the contrary, Cain s son is\\nthe pious Enoch, whose piety, it is true, is not\\nmentioned. Lamech is certainly a wild and ter-\\nrible figure, but the peculiar thing is that his\\nwickedness is not censured. His crime is due\\nto his savage and ferocious nature, which is ac-\\ncepted as a matter of course. He is not repre-\\nsented as a man with a conscience like the Cain\\nwith whom God pleads, but as a man who does\\nwrong with a light heart, and who boasts of his\\ncrimes. In short, he is faithfully depicted as the\\nrepresentative of an earlier age of humanity to\\nwhom moral standards do not apply. Everything\\nabout him is genuinely antique. He is one of\\nthe oldest figures in the world. One other thing\\nwhich plainly proves that this genealogy was not\\nThe fact that the Priestly Writer regards Cain as the great-\\ngrandson of Adam shows how tradition wavered in regard to him.\\n(294)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0332.jp2"}, "333": {"fulltext": "Cain the City Builder\\noriginally composed with reference to the Flood,\\nis the fact that Noah is not mentioned in it. La-\\nmech has three sons, which rounds out the\\nscheme of the table, but Noah is not one of them.\\nMy opinion, therefore, is that this old genealogy\\nof Cain was not originally connected with our\\nstory of Cain and Abel, and that it does not look\\nforward to the Flood. The descendants of Jabal,\\nJubal and Tubal are spoken of as alive at the\\ntime when the genealogy was composed. Dill-\\nmann is disposed to regard this document as the\\nfirst appearance of the third writer of Genesis,\\nwhom we call the Elohist, and he may very well\\nbe right.*\\nChapter iv., 17. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived,\\nand gave birth to Enoch: and he was a city builder, and he\\nnamed the city after the name of his son Enoch.\\nThere are several things in this verse that\\nsurprise us. For example, when it says, she\\ngave birth to Enoch and he was a city builder,\\nwe should naturally suppose that it was Enoch\\nwho built the city. Not until the end of the\\nverse do we find that the city builder was\\nCain himself. Leaving out of sight, as we ought\\nto do, the contradiction between the wandering\\nCain cursed by God and Cain the city builder,\\nsince they are two distinct narratives, is it a con-\\ntradiction that Cain, who is always represented\\nas a farmer, should have built the first city This\\nvery ancient tradition represents the first city as\\nThe second table seems to me to have better claims to be re-\\ngarded as the Jehovist s work. If so the same document would\\nhardly contain two genealogies. The numerous inconsistencies\\nbetween the first table and the Jehovist s narrative also point to\\nanother authorship.\\n(295)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0333.jp2"}, "334": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthe work of the farmer. Is that erroneous or is\\nit founded on a recollection of fact? Ihering\\ndiscusses this problem with his usual talent.*\\nHe calls attention to the fact that the simplest\\nway of accounting for town life would have been\\nto raise up a third figure say Seth beside Cain\\nthe farmer and Abel the shepherd, who should\\nrepresent town life. But, on the contrary, the\\nold tradition assigns the building of the first city\\nto the farmer. This is certainly curious. The\\nfarmer, by his very occupation, is compelled to\\nlive in the country, not in town. The town is\\nthe place for the merchant and the tradesman,\\nto which the farmer, only occasionally resorts to\\ndispose of his produce and to buy goods. That\\nis perfectly true of towns to-day, but it was not\\nthe original purpose of the town. The first\\ntowns everywhere were fortresses, not market\\nplaces. All the old towns were fortified and\\nthe essential parts were the walls, not the houses.\\nThe first towns were not so much dwelling places\\nas places of refuge to which the people might re-\\ntire when beset by their enemies. What makes\\nthis interesting to us is the fact that in this way\\nmany of our older American cities arose. Origi-\\nnally they were forts, or block houses, built\\nlargely for the purpose of safety, to which the\\nfarmer, the trader, and the backwoodsman might\\nfly when menaced by savages. That this is gen-\\nerally true all over the world is shown by the\\nname given the city by the different nations.\\nWith the Greeks, the Acropolis, the sharp-\\npointed, fortified place, came before the polis.\\nEvolution of the Aryan, chapter ii. Swan, Sonnenschein,\\n1897.\\n(296)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0334.jp2"}, "335": {"fulltext": "The Farmer and the City\\nThe Latin urbs, a walled town, is from orbis, a\\ncircle; i.e., the fortification. The German burg\\nmeans the surrounded, fortified place; stadt, the\\ncomfortable place, help.* The original meaning\\nof town is fence or enclosure; city is a resting\\nplace.f A very interesting rite, which preserved\\nthe connection between the farmer and the city,\\nand also the original purpose of the city, is found\\namong the Romans.if In tracing the outHne of\\na new city, a bull and a cow were harnessed to a\\nplough, the bull on the outside toward the enemy,\\nthe peaceable cow on the inside toward the walls.\\nThe old tradition, then, which makes Cain the\\nfarmer the first city builder, seems founded on\\nfact, and if we remember that the original pur-\\npose of the city was a place of refuge, not a per-\\nmanent dwelling place, even the contradiction\\nthat the wandering Cain, who feared so much to\\nbe killed, should have provided himself with such\\nan asylum, is weakened. As to what cities have\\ndone for man, I will only remind you that the\\nglorious word civilization means the condi-\\ntion of life in cities.\\ni8. And to Enoch, Irad was born: and Irad begat Mehu-\\njael, and Mehujael begat Methusael, and Methusael begat\\nLamech.\\nEnoch was supposed to mean dedication\\nor consecration. Its application here is not\\napparent. It might be conjectured that he was\\nnamed at the consecration of the city, or Enoch\\nmay not be a Hebrew word at all. Mehujael may\\nKluge, Etymol. Worterbuch.\\nf Skeat s Etymol. Diet.\\nX Borrowed from Etruscans Ihering.\\n(297)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0335.jp2"}, "336": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nbe interpreted the smitten of God, or God\\ngives me life. Methusael is suppliant, or\\nman of God, but hardly man of hell, as\\nRedslob thinks, which is too ill-omened.\\n19. And Lamech took to himself two wives, the name of\\nthe one was Adah, and the name of the other was Zillah.\\n20. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as\\ndwell in tents and have cattle.\\nThis is another proof that this genealogy knew\\nnothing of Abel the herdsman.\\n21. And the name of his brother was Jubal: he was the\\nfather of all that handle the harp and the pipe.\\n22. And Zillah also bare Tubal-Cain, the father of all\\nwho work in copper and iron; and the sister of Tubal-Cain\\nwas Naamah.\\n23. And Lamech said to his wives:\\nAdah and Zillah, hear my voice;\\nWives of Lamech, listen to my speech,\\nFor I have killed a man for wounding me\\nAnd a child for bruising me.\\nIf Cain be avenged sevenfold,\\nLamech, seventy-seven fold.\\nI have already said so much about Lamech\\nthat it is necessary to add but little more. It is\\nhard not to imagine that this strange figure, with\\nhis two wives Adah and Zillah, beauty and\\nshadow, was originally an elemental myth, con-\\nnected with day and night. If he were, that\\nmyth can no longer be identified with certainty.\\nIn our Book, he is represented merely as a man.\\nIt is customary to regard Lamech s wild song\\nas an outburst of triumph over his discovery of\\nthe art of forging metals into weapons. This is\\nnot stated in the song itself; his son Tubal-Cain\\nDillmann.\\n(298)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0336.jp2"}, "337": {"fulltext": "Metal Working\\nwas the first smith. And yet it is very natural\\nto ascribe the bold confidence of Lamech to the\\nsuperiority of his weapon, which enables him to\\nlook his enemies in the eye without fear. The\\npicture is very complete. In Lamech s family\\nwe see the ideal of a pastoral life realized. Jabal\\nis the father of all wandering shepherds, while\\nJubal and Tubal satisfied the simple needs of the\\nshepherd s life by inventing music and metal\\nworking.\\nIn regard to the discovery of metal working,\\nIhering believes that both the Aryans and the\\nBabylonians were ignorant of the use of metals\\nin primitive times. As late as the building of\\nSolomon s temple, the Jews were so unskilful in\\nthese arts that Solomon was obliged to entrust\\nthe execution of the bronze temple vessels and\\nornaments to Tyrian artists. At the time of\\nSamuel, iron was so little used by the Hebrews\\nthat there was no smith in the land of Israel who\\ncould so much as sharpen an axe or a plough-\\nshare, and the Hebrews depended on the Philis-\\ntines for weapons and implements.* On the\\nother hand, iron chariots were in use among the\\nCanaanites as early as 1250 b. c. t\\nAmong all the genealogies of the nations, the\\none which most resembles ours is the Phoenician,\\nrecorded by Sanchuniathon. Sanchuniathon\\ngives an elaborate description of the descent\\nof the first human beings, the discovery of fire\\nby the rubbing of two sticks together and also\\nby the friction of branches of trees lashed by\\nthe storm. The first human beings, whose names\\nindicate abstract qualities, were of vast size.\\n*i Sam. xiii. ig. f Judg-. i. 19; iv. 13.\\n(299)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0337.jp2"}, "338": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nLater Hypsuranius invents houses and discovers\\npapyrus. Usous, his brother, with whom he\\nquarrels, makes a raft out of a tree and ventures\\non the sea; Agreus and Halicus invent hunting\\nand fishing; the Technites, or craftsmen, discover\\nthe art of brickmaking. Others find sah and\\nmedicinal herbs. This list, however, which ap-\\npears to be wholly mythical and capricious,\\npasses from gods to men and from men back to\\ngods without any definite plan or purpose.* Yet\\nits ascription of the first human inventions to\\ndivine or semi-divine beings is very interesting,\\nand it is probable that the heroes of this portion\\nof Genesis were originally beings of the same\\norder.\\nIt remains to add a few words on the second\\ngenealogy, which consists now of only three\\nverses, the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth of chap-\\nter four, and the twenty-ninth verse of chapter\\nfive. It is a great pity that so much of this\\ngenealogy has been omitted, as it would be of\\ngreat interest to us to see if it also contained\\nthe same names. From the fact that it begins\\nwith Adam and Seth and ends with Noah, one\\nwould imagine that it was originally identical\\nwith the table of the Priestly Writer, and con-\\nsisted of ten members. As this genealogy plainly\\nalludes to Abel s murder and to the cursing of the\\nground, it seems to me simplest, in spite of small\\ndifificulties, to regard it as the work of the Jehov-\\nist. The Jehovist must have had some gene-\\nalogy containing the name of Noah and leading\\nup to his own account of the Flood; this is the\\nremains of that genealogy. It is plain the editor\\nCory s Fragments Sanchuniathon.\\n(300)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0338.jp2"}, "339": {"fulltext": "The Second Genealogy\\nof Genesis eliminated the whole body of this\\ntable, leaving only the beginning and the end,\\nbecause the table of the Priestly Writer, with his\\ncareful computations of time, immediately fol-\\nlows; and it is also plain why the editor left as\\nmuch as he did. The Priestly Writer of the fifth\\nchapter mentions Seth as the first son of Adam,\\nbut in the genealogy of Cain Seth s name is not\\nmentioned. Cain is always assumed to be Adam s\\nfirst child. At this gross contradiction every one\\nwould stumble. It was therefore necessary to\\nshow that the Jehovist admitted that Adam had\\na son Seth, though he was not his first son. The\\ngenealogy of Cain, moreover, does not as much\\nas mention Noah. It was therefore important\\nthat the Jehovist s statement in regard to Noah\\nshould be preserved in order to lead to his ac-\\ncount of the Flood. As to the relation of this\\nsecond genealogy to the first (the genealogy of\\nCain), the data are too slight to enable us to form\\nan opinion. The words -of the second genealogy\\nare as follows\\nChapter iv. 25. And Adam knew his wife again, and she\\nbare a son, and called his name Seth [substitution] for\\n[said she] Elohim has given me other seed, instead of\\nAbel, since Cain has slain him.\\nIt surprises us that the woman, who elsewhere\\nspeaks only of Jahveh, here calls God Elohim.\\nThis may have been substituted by the editor to\\navoid a contradiction with the next verse, where\\nIt is said that not until Enos did men call on the\\nname of Jahveh.\\nDillmann.\\n(301)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0339.jp2"}, "340": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n26. And to Seth in turn a son was born, and he called his\\nname Enos; then they began to call upon [God by] the\\nname of Jahveh.\\nThe authorship and the purpose of this verse,\\nwhich contradicts the statement that Cain and\\nAbel worshipped Jahveh, are very obscure it was\\nprobably added by a later hand. Here the table\\nis interrupted and concludes with these words:\\nChap. V, 29. And he called his name Noah [comfort],\\nsaying, The same shall comfort us for our work, and the\\nsore labor of our hands which comes from the ground\\nwhich Jahveh has cursed.\\nIn all probability these are the words of La-\\nmech, who, in the Priestly Writer s genealogy,\\nis represented as the father of Noah. We may\\nbe sure, however, that Lamech here is not the\\nbloodstained man the Cainite table describes.\\nHe is evidently an agriculturist, fulfilling his des-\\ntiny by hard toil. The perfect consistency of\\nthis verse, fragmentary as it is, with the condi-\\ntions imposed by God after Adam s sin, seems to\\nme a strong argument for believing this gene-\\nalogy to be the work of the Jehovist who drew\\nthe picture of the Fall. The possibility of its\\nhaving contained other of his characteristic views\\nmakes us regret the more that so little of it has\\nbeen preserved.*\\nDillmann, I think less correctly, regards this verse as the in-\\nterpolation of the Redactor. But why should the Redactor intro-\\nduce Jahveh in the middle of a document of the Priestly Writer\\nand connect the verse so closely with the story of the Jehovist\\n(302)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0340.jp2"}, "341": {"fulltext": "Crux Interpretum of Genesis\\nChapter Fifteen:\\nThe Sons of God and the Daughters of Men and\\nthe End of the Old World\\nAfter the dry genealogies of the fourth and\\njLjL fifth chapters, the brilHant little narrative\\nwith which the sixth chapter begins is very wel-\\ncome. The story of the marriages of the sons\\nof God with the daughters of men is unlike any-\\nthing else in the Old Testament. It seems to\\nbelong to some old cycle of folk-lore outside the\\nrevealed religion of Israel. Probably there is\\nno passage in the Bible that has provoked more\\ndiscussion, as, apart from the strangeness of the\\nideas it suggests, it is full of Hnguistic difificulties,\\none or two of which at the present time are\\nsimply insoluble. Not without reason is it called\\nthe crux interpretum of the first part of Genesis.\\nI think the best way to bring this passage before\\nyou will be to translate it, as far as it can be trans-\\nlated, and then to call your attention to the prob-\\nlems it contains.\\nChapter vi. i, 2. It came to pass as men began to multi-\\nply on the earth, and daughters were born to them, that\\nthe sons of Elohim saw that the daughters of men were\\nbeautiful, and they took of them to wife all who pleased\\nthem.\\n3. And Jahveh said: My spirit shall not always [i.e.,\\n(303)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0341.jp2"}, "342": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nforever] prevail in man because he also is flesh [or, by\\nreason of their error, he is flesh]. f So then let his days be\\none hundred and twenty years.\\n4. The [well known] giants [Nephilim] were on the\\nearth in those days, and also afterward, for the sons of\\nElohim went in to the daughters of men and these bore\\nchildren to them; they are the heroes who were celebrated\\nin gray antiquity.\\nBefore we attempt to give any account of the\\norigin of this wond erful story it will be necessary\\nto come to an miderstanding as to what it means.\\nWho are these sons of God so strangely de-\\nscribed as mingling with humanity? Are they\\nspiritual beings of the order of angels, or are\\nthey men As early as the Targumim of Unka-\\nlos, and Simeon, son of Jochai, or as the Greek\\nversion of Symmachus, the sons of God were re-\\ngarded as princes or nobles, iilii potentium,\\nwho made mesalliances with the daughters of the\\ncommon people. Others pretended that the\\nsons of God were merely just men who lived\\nYadhon. This is one of the words that cannot be satis-\\nfactorily rendered. The A. V. translates strive, but the verb\\nappears to be intransitive (Dillmann). Opinion fluctuates be-\\ntween be humbled, after the Arabic dana, and rule,\\ngovern. Neither can be proved. Addis gives rule,\\nDillmann is reserved, Kautzsch refuses to translate, Holzinger,\\nrule, prevail, Delitzsch, rule {walten), Siegfried and\\nStade, humble itself, Gesenius, in Thesaurus, non humilia-\\nbitur spiritus mens, in Worterbuch, loth ed., rule, pre-\\nvail. Yadhon is derived from the intransitive verb dun, or don,\\nwhich does not occur elsewhere.\\nf This word {b shaggaiii) is also hopeless because, or be-\\ncause also involves a late Hebraism which does not occur else-\\nwhere in the Hexateuch (Budde, Urgeschichte, p. 14).\\nBy their transgression, or by their error, makes no sense.\\nNot only is the change of number {enallage numeri) intoler-\\nable, but what sense would there be in saying that man, who is\\nalready flesh, by his union with spiritual beings has become flesh\\nWith more propriety this remark might be addressed to the sons\\nof God, but it does not appear to be addressed to them, it is\\naddressed to man.\\n(304)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0342.jp2"}, "343": {"fulltext": "The Sons of God\\nangelic lives. Probably the most common\\nopinion since the fourth century of our era\\nhas been that the sons of God were the de-\\nscendants of the pious Seth, while by the\\ndaughters of men we must understand the\\nworldly women of the Hne of Cain. This, how-\\never, is very improbable. There is no reason to\\nsuppose that the writers of Genesis regarded the\\ndescendants of Seth as peculiarly pious. On the\\ncontrary, in the genealogies we saw that the later\\nmembers of that family, except Noah, were de-\\nstroyed in the Flood. Neither is any hint given\\nthat marriages between these two families were\\nforbidden. It is very plain that in the expres-\\nsion sons of God and daughters of men\\nthe contrast is not between men of one family\\nand women of another, but between women\\ndescribed in the broadest sense as the feminine\\nportion of the human family and males who are\\nnot of the human family, but are an entirely dif-\\nferent order of being, here simply called the\\nsons of Elohim. This is further shown by the\\nfact that the offspring of these unions were\\ngiants, which in itself cuts the ground from under\\nall these explanations. It is also the sense in\\nwhich the story was first understood in the Jew-\\nish Church. The first definite attempt to inter-\\npret our narrative, so far as I am aware, is in the\\napocryphal book of Enoch, and the passage is so\\nimportant, both as showing how this chapter was\\nunderstood at the time, and as exhibiting the\\nfruits it has borne, that I shall give a few verses\\nof it. The passage begins, like our chapter, with\\nthe discovery on the part of the angels of the\\n(305)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0343.jp2"}, "344": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nbeauty of the daughters of men. The angels,\\nfilled with admiration for mortal maidens, re-\\nsolve to marry them. Sernjuza, their chief, hesi-\\ntates. He says: I am afraid that you do not\\nintend to carry out this act, and that I alone\\nwill have to pay the penalty of this great sin.\\nTwo hundred others, however, bind themselves\\nwith an oath to do it. Accordingly, the whole\\nbrood sweeps down to the peak of Mount Her-\\nmon. They go up and down on the earth and\\nmake choice of those young women who please\\nthem best. The angels teach them all kinds of\\nmagic arts and incantations. Their children are\\ndescribed as giants three thousand ells high, and\\nthese giants eat up all man s provisions so that\\nthere is nothing left for men, and after they have\\neaten all man s food, they begin to devour men\\nand animals and fish, and to drink their blood,\\nuntil the whole earth groans over the injustice.\\nThis attracts the attention of the good angels.\\nMichael, Gabriel, Surjan and Urjan looked\\ndown from heaven and saw all the blood that was\\nshed on the earth, and all the injustice that was\\nperpetrated there. And they said one to an-\\nother, The earth lets the voice of its cry echo\\nto the gate of heaven; and to you, ye holy ones\\nof heaven, do the souls of men cry, saying, Do\\nus justice before the Most High. Accord-\\ningly they inform God of all that is going on upon\\nthe earth, and the Lord sends the archangel\\nUriel to warn Noah that He is about to destroy\\nthe whole earth with a deluge. Next the Lord\\ncommands Raphael to bind Azazel, t one of the\\nHere called Arsjalaljur.\\nf Azazel figures in the ceremony of the scape-goat where the\\n(306)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0344.jp2"}, "345": {"fulltext": "The Fall of the Angels\\nchiefs of the sinning angels, hand and foot. Lay\\nhim in darkness. Make a hole in the wilderness\\nof Dudael and lay him in it. Put rough and sharp\\nstones on him, and cover him with darkness, that\\nhe may remain there forever, and cover his face\\nthat he may not see the light, and in the great\\nday of judgment he shall be thrown into the lake\\nof fire.\\nIt is very plain that St. Jude had this story be-\\nfore him and followed it almost word for word\\nwhen he wrote, And the angels which kept not\\ntheir first estate, but left their own habitation, he\\nhath reserved in everlasting chains under dark-\\nness, until the judgment of the last day. f It is\\nalso interesting to observe that St. Jude refers in\\nthe very next verse to the only other allusion in\\nthe Bible to an unnatural union between angels\\nand men. When he speaks of Sodom and Go-\\nmorrah going after strange flesh he evidently\\nhas in mind the terrible story of Genesis xix.\\nIn the second epistle ascribed to St. Peter, it\\nis also evident that the author has the same event\\nin mind when he says, If God spared not the\\nangels that sinned, but cast them down to hell\\nand delivered them into chains of darkness to be\\nreserved unto judgment. The doctrine of the\\nFall of the Angels, therefore, appears to rest on\\nthe strange story of Genesis.\\nWithout going any further we can see that\\nthis story of the union of the sons of God and\\nAuthorized Version reads Let him go for a scape-goat into the\\nwilderness (Lev. xvi. lo) the Hebrew has Let him go for a\\nscape-goat to Azazel.\\nBook of Enoch, pp. 6-il,\\nf Epistle of St. Jude, 6.\\nX 2 Peter, ii. 4.\\n(307)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0345.jp2"}, "346": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthe daughters of men was a popular tale in\\nthe century before Christ and in the century after\\nChrist. It is found in the Book of Jubilees,* in\\nPhilo JudaeuSjt and in Josephus^ AH these\\nauthors, as well as many of the church Fathers\\nof the first three centuries, understood by the\\nsons of God angels, and nothing else. It is\\neven possible that the Book of Enoch may con-\\ntain some old Hebrew traditions which were al-\\nlowed to fall from Genesis. Sons of God is a\\nname often applied to angels in the Old Testa-\\nment, especially in Job and the Psalms.\\nI therefore regard this point as proved. Al-\\nthough the author of this curious Httle passage,\\nwhich in its main features is very ancient, may\\nnot have been familiar with the developed doc-\\ntrine of angels as we find it in the later portions\\nof the Old Testament, yet by the sons of God\\nhe did not mean mortal men of any family,\\nrace or condition, but an order of spiritual beings\\nlike those to whom God alluded when He said\\nLet us make man in our image, or The man\\nhas become hke one of us, or Let us go down.\\nSo it was understood by the earliest Jewish ex-\\npositors, and by the Christian Fathers before\\nthey decided, from reasons which have nothing\\nto do with exegesis, to change their opinion.\\nGranting that the sons of God are angelic\\nbeings, or still better, spiritual beings, superior\\nto man, we see at once that we are dealing with\\na very peculiar story, which resembles the myths\\nDillmann, in Ewald s Jahrbiicher, ii. 248.\\nI De Gigantibus, ii. 358, ed. Mangey.\\ni Antiq. i. 3, I.\\nJob, i. 6 ii. I xxxviii. 7. Psalm xxix. i Ixxxix. 6 Sons\\nof mighty, Elim.\\n(308)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0346.jp2"}, "347": {"fulltext": "Supernatural Origin of Heroes\\nof the Gentiles much more than the reHgion of\\nthe Old Testament, with its clean-cut distinc-\\ntion between God and man. In short, the giants\\nare conceived as a sort of intermediate race be-\\ntween gods and men, and it was for the sake of\\ndestroying this proud and unnatural brood that\\nthe Flood was sent. Among the Greeks and\\nRomans the habit of tracing the descent of noble\\nfamilies from gods and goddesses was very com-\\nmon. Plato goes so far as to say that all heroes\\nare demigods, born of the love of a god for a\\nmortal woman or of a goddess for a mortal man.\\nSuch an idea could have arisen among the He-\\nbrews only at an early age, and we may be sure\\nthat this story is very old. It appears in the\\ndocument of the Jehovist, but he certainly did\\nnot originate it. On the contrary, it is a tale\\nopposed to his whole mode of thought, as we\\ncan infer from the way he hurries over it, strip-\\nping it doubtless of many of its mythological\\nfeatures. From the description of the giants\\nand heroes of old as celebrated men men of re-\\nnown it is plain that they were popular charac-\\nters, of whom the people had many stories to tell.\\nWe may compare them with the heroes of\\nHomer or with the Titans, who also had a super-\\nnatural origin. At the beginning of the Phoeni-\\ncian genealogies, mention is made of giants of\\nvast bulk and height, whose names were con-\\nferred on the mountains on which they dwelt.\\nIt was in some such way that this story arose\\neither from the habit of tracing the descent of\\nheroes from the gods, or to account for the origin\\nof an old and vanished race of giants. The\\nSanchuniathon, in Cory s \u00e2\u0080\u00a2\u00e2\u0080\u00a2Fragments, p. 6.\\n(309)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0347.jp2"}, "348": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nJehovist found this ancient tale and made use of\\nit to prepare the way for his story of the Flood.\\nHe evidently regards these unnatural unions be-\\ntween angels and men, and the proud and mighty\\nrace of giants resulting from them, as one of the\\nprovocations which induced Jahveh to destroy\\nthe earth. That this story is very loosely con-\\nnected with the Book of Genesis is shown by the\\nintroduction, and also by the fact that the deeds\\ndescribed are not associated with any of the per-\\nsons whom we already know. It came to pass\\nwhen men began to multiply on the earth.\\nWhen was that? We can only say, apparently\\nsome time before the Flood. But both the Jeho-\\nvist and the Priestly Writer have already carried\\ntheir genealogies down to the Flood. It would\\nalso appear that the story originally did not men-\\ntion Jahveh, and was not composed with refer-\\nence to Him; as, indeed, how could it be? All\\nthe rest of the narrative runs smoothly and hangs\\nwell together, but the verse in which Jahveh\\nspeaks is full of all kinds of difficulties. Another\\nthing is evident. A large part of our belief in\\nthe Fall of the angels rests on this narrative. We\\nsaw how the idea was seized on by Enoch, from\\nwhom it passed to St. Jude; but the story origin-\\nally did not contain this thought. Such myth-\\nical marriages were considered quite natural at\\nthe time this myth was composed. Even as the\\nnarrative stands in the document of the Jehovist\\nin Genesis, no blame is attached to the angels.\\nNot a word of censure is addressed to them. Jah-\\nveh addresses His warning solely to man. The\\npurpose of the limitation Jahveh imposes on\\nhuman life, fixing its duration at one hundred\\n(310)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0348.jp2"}, "349": {"fulltext": "Limitation of Human Life\\nand twenty years, also seems plain. Man is al-\\nready sinful and corrupt, but if in addition to his\\nsinfulness he gains an enormous accession of\\nstrength and power from the angels, it is plain\\nthat he will become too insolent to be endured.\\nAccordingly, with profound insight, the years of\\nhis life are cut short. It does not yet appear that\\nGod has determined upon the destruction of the\\nrace in the Flood. The one hundred and twenty\\nyears spoken of are not one hundred and twenty\\nyears that the earth shall still endure before the\\nFlood; the meaning is that human life in general\\nis to be shortened to this term. This does not\\nagree very well with the fact that Jared and Me-\\nthuselah, who lived to the Flood, according to\\nthe Samaritan Pentateuch, were more than seven\\nhundred years old at their deaths, and that even\\nLamech attained more than six hundred and fifty\\nyears. But we must remember that these are the\\nfigures of the Priestly Writer, not of the Jehovist,\\nwho has not yet expressed himself as to the age\\nof the patriarchs.\\nI wish now to glance at this narrative a little\\nmore sharply before taking leave of it. The\\nfirst two verses are perfectly simple. Strange\\nas such marriages seem to us, and opposed as\\nthey are to New Testament ideas, they seemed\\nnatural to those who first recounted them. We\\nmust remember, though we call these sons of\\nElohim angels, because we have no other name\\nfor them, that they are very different from those\\nholy beings who, Jesus afifirmed, neither marry\\nnor are given in marriage. These were doubt-\\nless mere nature-deities whose marriages were\\nrecounted in good faith. The real difificulty of\\n(311)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0349.jp2"}, "350": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthe passage begins with the speech of Jahveh in\\nthe third verse, and it is aggravated, as we have\\nseen, by two untranslatable words.\\nAnd Jahveh said, My spirit shall not always\\n[forever] prevail [or be humbled] in man/\\nThis much, in spite of the uncertainty of the word,\\nis intelligible, but how shall we explain what fol-\\nlows? Let us try both alternatives. Because\\nhe also, or he too on his part is flesh, so then\\nlet his days be one hundred and twenty years.\\nThe spirit spoken of here is not the Holy Spirit,\\nbut the vital spirit or breath God breathed into\\nman when He created him. This is a very com-\\nmon idea in the Old Testament. The breath of\\nlife belongs to God, it is not a product of the\\nphysical organism. When God breathes His\\nbreath into an animal or a man, that being which\\nbefore was mere inert flesh becomes living.\\nWhen God draws His breath back again it dies.\\nSo Job says, The breath of the Almighty hath\\ngiven me life, and in the One Hundred and\\nFourth Psalm we read, Thou takest away their\\nbreath, they die. t This expression, therefore,\\nwould simply mean My breath will not sustain\\nman forever, because he also is flesh so let him\\nlive one hundred and twenty years. This, on the\\nwhole, is very weakly and obscurely expressed.\\nThe because he also robs it of any real signifi-\\ncance. Delitzsch s because he too on his part,\\nwith its fanciful explanation, is not any better.\\nThe other alternative, in consequence of\\ntheir error [i.e., the angels he is flesh, be-\\nsides containing a grammatical enormity, means\\nJob, xxxiii. 4. f Psalm civ. 29.\\n(312)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0350.jp2"}, "351": {"fulltext": "Linguistic Difficulties\\nnothing at all, as man always was flesh, and it is\\nhard to see how he becomes more fleshly by\\nunion with spiritual beings.\\nIf we could translate in spite of their error\\ni.e., in spite of the infusion of angelic substance\\nand strength, man is and remains flesh it would\\nat least convey a meaning, tut it would be very\\nforced. The expression My spirit shall not\\nprevail forever in man also strikes us as curious,\\nand makes us* suspect that in the writer s opinion\\nsome change has taken place in man s constitu-\\ntion. A life of even nine hundred years is a very\\ndifferent thing from living forever. The same\\nword is employed as when Jahveh says, The\\nman has become as one of us, knowing good and\\nevil, and now lest he put forth his hand and take\\nalso of the Tree of Life and eat and live forever.\\nWellhausen,* as usual^ has a bright, original in-\\nterpretation, which, if I understand him rightly,\\nwould be, My spirit [i.e., the spiritual substance\\nof which angels consist as well as God] shall not\\nalways prevail in man, because he also is flesh.\\nIn that case, however, the infusion of divine sub-\\nstance ought to lengthen man s days, not to\\nshorten them. Budde solves the problem by\\nomitting this vexatious verse here and inserting\\nit at the end of the third chapter of Genesis,\\nwhere he discards the words pertaining to the\\nTree of Life the man has become like one of\\nus, etc. and substitutes My breath shall not\\nalways prevail in man, through their error [i.e.,\\nAdam and Eve s sin] he is flesh, so let his Hfe be\\none hundred and twenty years. This, however,\\nis to rewrite the Scripture, not to explain it.\\nWellhausen, Composition des Hexateuch, p. 306.\\n(313)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0351.jp2"}, "352": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nIt seems to me much more natural to suppose\\nthat this speech of Jahveh, which certainly breaks\\nthe connection between the second and the\\nfourth verses, and with which the fourth verse\\nhas nothing to do, was introduced by the Jeho-\\nvist as his comment on the whole story. With-\\nout this speech of Jahveh s, the story would have\\nno moral or religious meaning whatever. It\\nwould be a mere piece of natural history, or, as\\nwe should say, of folk lore, and as such it would\\nnot deserve a place in our Book. With the third\\nverse, however, it has a meaning. Difficult as\\nthe exact significance is to extract, the sense of\\nthe passage undoubtedly is that this mingling of\\nheavenly and earthly beings is displeasing to\\nGod, and, with other causes, provokes Him to de-\\nstroy the earth in the Flood. But for the present\\nHe prevents the pride and power of the Titanic\\nrace from rising too high by denying its mem-\\nbers the immortality of their angelic sires, and\\neven by shortening the previous term of human\\nlife.\\nThe fourth verse also is not altogether free\\nfrom difficulty, but here the difficulty seems to\\narise from the fact that the verse is very loosely\\nconstructed. The giants were on the earth in\\nthose days, and also afterwards; for the sons of\\nGod went in to the daughters of men, and these\\nbare children to them. They are the heroes who\\nwere celebrated in gray antiquity. Two classes\\nof beings are mentioned in this verse, both evi-\\ndently the fruit of the union of heavenly with\\nearthly beings the giants, or Nephilim, and the\\nheroes of the olden time. The Hebrews, Hke all\\nother nations, believed in giants. You remem-\\n(3^4)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0352.jp2"}, "353": {"fulltext": "Giants\\nber when Moses sent the IsraeHtish spies to\\nsearch the land of Canaan, they came back and\\nreported, And there we saw the giants, the sons\\nof Anak, the giants, and we were in our own\\nsight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their\\nsight. In Deuteronomy we read The peo-\\nple is greater and taller than we, the cities are\\ngreat and walled up to heaven. Moreover, we\\nsaw the sons of Anakim there. f Sometimes\\nthese giants were called Nephilim and sometimes\\nAnakim. Since the narrative speaks of them\\nas living afterwards, it is very likely that these\\ngiants were associated with those which the\\nHebrew spies saw in Canaan. No doubt this\\nstrange story of ours was composed in part to\\naccount for the origin of such giants, who did\\nnot seem to belong to the human race. It need\\nnot surprise us that this race of giants survived\\nthe Flood, as this little tale was not composed\\noriginally with reference to the Flood. The Mo-\\nhammedans get around this difificulty ingeniously\\nin a giant story which occurs in a commentary on\\nthe Koran.:): There it is related that the giant Uj\\nwas born in the days of Adam and lived thirty-five\\nhundred years. He was so tall that Noah s Flood\\ndid not trouble him at all, as it barely reached to\\nhis middle. I may say that beHef in giants exists\\nthroughout Asia, and that many relics of them\\nare preserved e.g., a grave twenty-seven feet\\nlong, opposite the Church Mission at Peshawur,\\nwhich is held in great honor by both Moham-\\nNumbers, xiii. 33. The only other place in the Bible where\\nthe word Nephilim occurs.\\nt Deut. i. 28.\\nX Hughes s Diet, of Islam, art. Giants.\\n{315)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0353.jp2"}, "354": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmedans and Hindus.* Traditions in regard to\\ngiants all arise in the same way. Some human\\nbeings are much larger than others, and they are\\nsupposed to be descended from a larger race.\\nCertain works are discovered built on a grander\\nscale than men now build, or bones of unknown\\nanimals are found which are falsely supposed to\\nbe human bones_, etc., etc. In regard to the\\nHebrews, it is plain that, apart from shadowy\\ntraditions, they knew next to nothing of the pre-\\nhistorical races of Canaan. One of the tribes\\nthey mention there the Rephaim seems to\\nbe connected with the spirits of the dead.f But\\nthey found in Canaan the remains of some\\nof those megalithic structures, dolmen, menhir,\\ncromlechs, consisting of vast, unhewn stones\\narranged in circles or piled one on top of\\nanother in a way that seemed unaccountable\\nexcept on the supposition that a larger and\\nstronger humanity had lived and worked there.\\nAs for the renowned heroes of antiquity, every\\ntalented nation has preserved recollections of\\nsuch men, and we can only be sorry that the\\nHebrews allowed so many of their oldest tradi-\\ntions to perish. Those who wish to see every\\nramification of this narrative illustrated from far\\nand near would be interested in Lenormant s\\nbrilliant chapter on the Children of God and the\\nDaughters of Men.\\nWe have now reached the grand catastrophe\\nwhich made an end of the old world. The result\\nHughes s Diet, of Islam, art. Giants.\\nf Stade, Geschichte Israels, vol. i. p. 420, anm. 2.\\nISee Nowack s Hebr. Archaologie, Kap. ii.\\nBeginnings of History, chap. vii.\\n(3^6)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0354.jp2"}, "355": {"fulltext": "End of the Old World\\nof the first chapter of human history is summed\\nup in the sad words\\nChapter vi. 5. And Jahveh beheld that the wickedness\\nof man was great on the earth, and the formation of the\\nthoughts of his heart was only evil continually.\\n6. And Jahveh repented that He had made man on the\\nearth and it grieved Him at His heart.\\nThis leads directly to the story of the Flood,\\none of the greatest narratives in human litera-\\nture. It is naturally my wish to study these\\nimportant chapters with care, and to leave out\\nnothing that ought to be put in. I shall begin by\\ntaking account of our materials.\\nWe have already seen a good many times that\\nin this portion of Genesis we have two separate\\nand distinct sources of knowledge the docu-\\nment of the Jehovist and the document of the\\nPriestly Writer which, as a rule, are easily dis-\\ntinguished. These two documents continue to\\nbe our only guides through the intricacies of the\\ngreat Flood narrative, but not in exactly the same\\nmanner as heretofore. In the earlier chapters of\\nGenesis, as a rule, they have interpreted each\\nother very little. First one author has told a\\ncomplete story, then the other has followed with\\nanother complete story. The Priestly Writer,\\nfor example, gave the first account of Creation,\\nthe Jehovist gave the second, and followed it with\\na long and beautiful narrative of Eden, the Fall,\\nCain and Abel^ and the genealogy of Cain, in\\nwhich the Priestly Writer did not once interrupt\\nhim. Then the Priestly Writer appeared again\\nwith the genealogy of Seth. In the story of the\\nFlood, however, it is different. Both our writers\\nhave preserved very complete accounts of that\\n(317)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0355.jp2"}, "356": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwonderful event, neither of which the editor of\\nGenesis wished to sacrifice. Two courses, there-\\nfore, were open to him. Either he could let\\nthese two accounts follow each other, as he did in\\nthe case of the two accounts of Creation, which\\nwould be rather mechanical; or else he could\\nwork both narratives together into one continu-\\nous story by breaking up each account and fitting\\nthe various fragments together as best he could.\\nIt is a proof of the care with which the Redactor\\ndid his work, that when these two dislocated\\ndocuments are detached from each other arid are\\nput together again in their original order, we\\nhave two independent and nearly complete stor-\\nies of the Flood one from the Priestly Writer\\nand the other from the Jehovist.\\nThere is one thing, however, which no editor,\\nhowever conscientious, could avoid in piecing\\ntwo narratives together in this way that is, re-\\npeating himself. This accounts satisfactorily\\nand perfectly for those strange repetitions and\\ndiscrepancies which run all through the Flood\\nstory, and w^hich so many persons have criticised\\nor ridiculed. Those who are ignorant of the\\nmanner in which the Book of Genesis was com-\\nposed have some excuse for their surprise or\\nmerriment, but for our part we do not criticise\\nour Book on these grounds. On the contrary,\\nwe are thankful to our editor for not sacrificing\\neither of his sources to the other. He might\\neasily have done so and have produced one\\nsimple, straightforw^ard story without a single\\ncontradiction, thereby escaping the ridicule of\\nmany fools; but it w^ould have been a much\\npoorer story than the rich and glorious narrative\\n(3^8)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0356.jp2"}, "357": {"fulltext": "Structure of Flood Story\\nwe possess. This is one of the occasions on which\\ncriticism closes the mouth of infideUty by show-\\ning the latter that it does not know what it is\\nlaughing or railing at. I shall point out some\\nof these repetitions and discrepancies when it\\nis necessary, but I do so with no intention of\\nweakening the veracity of our Book. I only\\nwish that you may see clearly how the Book is\\nconstructed and how our two narratives are com-\\nbined. In regard to the trustworthiness of the re-\\nsult, I will merely say that no portion of the Old\\nTestament has been studied with more pains and\\nwith more conspicuous success than the story of\\nthe Flood. As to the relative proportions of the\\ntwo documents in the Flood narrative, the larger\\npart belongs to the Priestly Writer; very little\\nseems to have been left out of his original ver-\\nsion. All the computations of the years, the\\nmeasurements of the ark, etc., are from his pen,\\nand they are made in his characteristic style.\\nNow let me make good my assertion in regard\\nto repetitions and inconsistencies. There are\\ntwo introductions to the Flood. The first, which\\nI have just presented, is by the Jehovist. Jahveh\\nrepents of making man, and resolves to destroy\\nman and beast and creeping thing. This passage\\nends with the words, But Noah found grace in\\nthe eyes of Jahveh. Then the very next verse\\nbegins anew with Noah and repeats in different\\nlanguage what was said about the corruption of\\nthe earth. The first passage calls God Jahveh,\\nthe second calls Him Elohim. So Noah enters\\nthe ark twice. In the seventh verse of the\\nseventh chapter we read Noah went in and his\\nGen. vi. 8.\\n(319)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0357.jp2"}, "358": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nsons and his wife and his sons wives with him,\\ninto the ark because of the waters of the flood.\\nForty days of continuous rain are supposed to\\npass, at the end of which time we are told again,\\nIn the selfsame day entered Noah and Shem\\nand Ham and Japheth into the ark.\\nThe floating of the ark is twice described, And\\nthe flood was forty days on the earth, and the\\nwaters increased and bare up the ark, and it\\nwas lift up above the earth. f And in the very\\nnext verse we read almost in the same words,\\nAnd the waters prevailed and were increased\\ngreatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the\\nface of the waters. Twice all flesh dies. And\\nall flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of\\nfowl and of cattle and of beast and\\nevery man. And in the next verse, All in\\nwhose nostrils was the breath of life\\ndied. And every living creature was destroyed\\nboth man and cattle and creeping\\nthings. Twice the subsiding of the waters is\\ndescribed.! The promise that the flood shall not\\nbe repeated is twice given. And Jahveh\\nsmelled a sweet savor, and Jahveh said in his\\nheart, I will not again curse the ground any\\nmore. Neither will I smite any more\\nevery thing living, as I have done. In the\\nnext chapter Elohim makes a promise to Noah\\non the sign of the rainbow, I will remember the\\ncovenant which is between me and you\\nand nevermore shall the waters rise to a flood to\\ndestroy all flesh.\\nvii.\\n13.\\nvii.\\n17.\\nX\\nvii.\\n21.\\nVll.\\n22,\\n23.\\n1\\nVlll.\\n2,\\nix,\\n3,\\nI\\n13,\\n5-\\n14.\\nVlll\\n21.\\n(320)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0358.jp2"}, "359": {"fulltext": "Repetitions and Contradictions\\nBesides these repetitions there are a good\\nmany contradictions. In the nineteenth verse of\\nthe sixth chapter we read, And of every living\\nthing of all flesh two of each sort shalt thou bring\\ninto the ark. But in the second verse of the\\nseventh chapter it says, Of every beast that is\\nclean thou shalt take seven pairs, the male with\\nhis mate, and of beasts that are not clean one\\npair. According to the eleventh verse of the\\nsame chapter the flood arose from two causes\\nthe fountains of the deep were broken up and the\\nwindows of heaven were opened. According to\\nthe twelfth verse it was caused merely by heavy\\nrains. The length of the rise and fall of the waters\\nis differently estimated. According to the Je-\\nhovist,* the rain fell for forty days and Noah\\nfloated on the water in his ark. Then he sent\\nout a raven seven days later a dove after seven\\ndays more he sent the dove a second time, when\\nit brought back an olive leaf. After other seven\\ndays he sent the dove a third time. Then he\\nopened the door and went out himself. The\\nwhole duration of the Flood, therefore, was forty\\nplus twenty-one days, or sixty-one days. But\\naccording to the Priestly Writer, the waters pre-\\nvailed on the earth for one hundred and fifty\\ndays,t and it was more than a year before the\\nearth was dry. if\\nI pass over other repetitions and contradic-\\ntions, but I think those mentioned are sufficient\\nto prove that two separate accounts are closely\\n*vii. 12.\\nf vii. 24,\\nX For most of these repetitions and contradictions, see Hol-\\nzinger and Dillmann, who also give other examples.\\n(321)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0359.jp2"}, "360": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ninterwoven in these chapters. No sane writer\\nrepeats and contradicts himself in this rpanner.\\nIn our study of the Flood I think it will be best\\nto treat each account separately. There are, of\\ncourse, differences of opinion as to the author-\\nship of some verses, but on the whole the Hne of\\ncleavage is wonderfully distinct.\\n(322)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0360.jp2"}, "361": {"fulltext": "Two Accounts of the Flood\\nChapter Sixteen:\\nThe Two Stories of the Deluge\\nWE come now to the great story of the\\nDeluge, which, after the narrative of\\nthe Creation and Fall of man, is the portion of\\nGenesis that has had the greatest effect in\\nshaping the thought of the world. The Flood\\nnarrative is the composite work of two writers\\nwhom we have already learned to know as the\\nPriestly Writer and the Jehovist. Only here,\\ninstead of allowing their narratives to follow each\\nother, the editor of Genesis has broken them up\\nand has fitted the fragments together so as to\\nform one rich and varied picture. In this mosaic\\nsome parts overlap, i.e., repetitions and discrepan-\\ncies occur which could not well be avoided. The\\ntwo documents are so dissimilar in style and ex-\\npression that it is possible, for the most part, to\\nseparate them, and in this way to discover the\\ntwo original accounts, or all that is left of them.\\nThat is what I now propose to do. I am sure\\nthat we shall obtain a better insight into the nar-\\nrative by studying the two accounts separately,\\nand as nearly as possible as they came from the\\nhands of their authors. The separation of these\\ntwo documents is the result of a long critical proc-\\ness which has been going on for many years. I\\nshall not attempt to describe the process now,\\n(323)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0361.jp2"}, "362": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nbut shall give you its results. As to the trust-\\nworthiness of these results I will only say that the\\nmost gratifying unanimity prevails among the\\ngreat scholars. As a rule the line of cleavage is\\nclear and distinct. The work of the Jehovist\\nand the work of the Priestly Writer are easily dis-\\ntinguished. It is true, the additions made by the\\nRedactor in giving the work its present form are\\nnot always so plain, but where this uncertainty\\naffects an important verse I shall call your at-\\ntention to it. Let us begin with the account of\\nthe Jehovist.\\nJehovist s Story of the Flood\\nChapter vi. 7. Then said Jahveh, I will blot out men\\nwhom I have created from the earth, man as well as beast,\\nworm and bird of the sky, since I repent that I made\\nthem.\\nNo mention has as yet been made of any cor-\\n*^fuption among the beasts, although the Priestly\\nWriter speaks of the corruption of all flesh upon\\nthe earth, in which the beasts may be included.\\nThat need not surprise us, however, as the pur-\\npose of this verse is to lead to the Flood, which\\nin the nature of things would drown beasts as\\nwell as men. Only the fishes were safe in that\\njudgment.\\nJahveh repents that He made man and de-\\ntermines to destroy him. There is much that is\\ncurious in this conception. Such language ap-\\nplied to the Diety is what theologians call an-\\nthropopathic, i.e., it imputes human passion to\\nFrom the use of the Priestly Writer s word, ^ara create,\\nwhich is not an expression of the Jehovist, as well as from the\\nenumeration, in the Priestly Writer s style, of beast, worm, and\\nbird, this verse is usually ascribed to the Redactor.\\n(324)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0362.jp2"}, "363": {"fulltext": "Anthropomorphic Conceptions\\nGod. The expression is bold, but very naif.\\nJahveh, it is plain, is not omniscient. He was not\\nable to foresee the result of creating such a being\\nas man. Had He foreseen the consequences. He\\nwould not have created him. So Jahveh is sorry\\nfor what He has done, -it grieved Him at His\\nheart. Jahveh naturally expected man to be\\ngood, and man is evil. Instead of attempting to\\nmake him better, Jahveh determines to destroy\\nhim. That is not the usual thought or language\\nof the Old Testament, and we may be sure such\\nan idea did not grow up on the soil of Israel s re-\\nligious faith. It is not a religious idea, but a sad\\nadmission of failure on the part of God, and,\\nmoreover, the purpose is not carried out. In the\\ndeliverance of Noah and his family, the seed is\\npreserved out of which a second humanity will\\ngrow, in most respects as bad as the first.\\nChapter vii. i. And Jahveh said to Noah, Come thou\\nand all thy house into the ark.\\nThe Priestly Writer is careful to enumerate\\nthe persons who are to be admitted. Nothing is\\nsaid here about the building of the ark, which the\\nJehovist must have described. His description,\\nhowever, was allowed to fall because the Priestly\\nWriter described the ark more specifically, giv-\\ning dimensions according to his custom. The\\nword for ark {tebah) occurs only in this narrative\\nand in Exodus,* where the mother of Moses made\\nan ark of bulrushes to serve as a watertight\\ncradle for her babe. It has been regarded as an\\nEgyptian word,t although we should rather ex-\\npect a Babylonian word here.t It does not ap-\\n*Exod. ii. 3. f Gesenius, Thesaurus. Halevy, Jensen.\\n(325)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0363.jp2"}, "364": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\npear to mean a ship or vessel, but a box or chest,\\nincapable of propulsion.\\nFor thee have I seen righteous before me in this gen-\\neration.*\\n2, 3. Of all clean animals thou shalt take seven pairs, f\\nthe male and his mate; and of animals which are not clean,\\none pair, the male and his mate. Also of the birds of the\\nsky seven pairs [of each kind] in order to keep their seed\\nalive on the face of all the earth.\\nThe distinction between clean and unclean ani-\\nmals, in a liturgical sense, at least, is an antici-\\npation here. Noah is commanded to preserve a\\nlarger number of clean and useful animals to\\nguard against possible accidents, to provide him\\nwith the means of sacrificing after the Flood, and\\nin order that the clean animals may reproduce\\nthemselves more rapidly than the unclean.^ No\\nsuch distinction is drawn in the Hebrew text be-\\ntween the birds, and yet the raven s presence in\\nthe ark proves that other than clean birds were\\nadmitted, the raven being accounted unclean.\\nEvery raven after his kind shall be an abomina-\\ntion.\\n4. For after seven days I will cause rain to fall for forty\\ndays and forty nights on the earth, and every existing thing\\nwhich I have made I will blot out from the earth.\\n7. Then Noah and all his house went into the ark [for\\nsafety] from the waters of the flood.\\n8, 9. Of clean beasts and of unclean, and of birds and of\\nall that creep on the ground, they went in, in each case two\\nOne name for the Babylonian Noah, Hasis Hadra, means\\npious and wise. (Addis.)\\nf Literally, seven seven. Here seven and seven, i.e., seven\\npairs.\\nX Dillmann.\\nLev. xi. 15 see also Deut. xiv. 14.\\nII The Priestly Writer s formula, sons, wife, and sons wives,\\nwas inserted here by the Redactor.\\n(326)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0364.jp2"}, "365": {"fulltext": "Jehovist s Narrative\\n[in pairs] to Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as\\nElohim commanded Noah.*\\ni6. And Jahveh shut [the door] after him.f\\n10. And after seven days the waters of the flood were on\\nthe earth.\\n12. And a torrent of rain fell on the earth for forty days\\nand forty nights.\\n17. And the flood was on the earth forty days, t And the\\nwaters increased and carried the ark, and it floated high\\nabove the earth.\\n22. Everything that had in its nostrils the breath of life,\\neverything that lived on dry land died.\\nOur narrative does not contemplate tlie de-\\nstruction of vegetattion, which must surely have\\ntaken place, since no pains were taken to avert\\nthis misfortune, as in the Persian story. When\\nthe waters recede the plants and trees are found\\nliving in their old places.\\n23. And he [Jahveh] blotted out every existing thing on\\nthe surface of the ground, and Noah only was left, and\\nthey that were with him in the ark.\\nChapter viii. 2^. And the torrent of rain from heaven\\nceased.\\n3^ And the waters subsided from the earth more and\\nmore.\\n6. And it came to pass at the end of forty days that Noah\\nopened the window [hatch] of the ark which he had made.\\n7. And he sent forth a raven, and it went back and forth\\nuntil the waters were dried up upon the earth.\\nThe raven here, as everywhere, is mentioned\\nas a bird of ill omen. Because of its well-known\\nhabit of preying on the dead it would not search\\nThe Redactor has substituted Elohim in this verse. The\\nSam. Pent., onkelos Vulg., etc., read Jahveh. (Addis.)\\nf This last anthropomorphism has evidently been forced from\\nits place. (Dillmann and Addis.)\\nt Holzinger ascribes this verse to the Priestly Writer.\\nThe Septuagint has and departing did not return, which\\nis evidently a mistake, else what was the purpose of sending out\\nthe dove\\n(327)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0365.jp2"}, "366": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nfor land as Noah wished it to do. Sated with\\ncarrion, it fluttered back to the ark and perched\\nthere until hunger drove it forth again, so it was\\nuseless for Noah s purpose. This bold and intel-\\nligent fowl is one of the most ancient and famous\\nof birds. Almost alone among birds, it refuses\\nto doff its glossy, black livery on the ice fields\\nof the polar regions. Members of this family are\\nfound all over the world, from Asia to America.\\nOn account of its strange appearance and un-\\ncanny habits, the raven has been regarded with\\nsuperstitious reverence by almost all nations as\\nthe bird of the dead. By the Greeks it was con-\\nsidered as prophetic and was sacred to Apollo.\\nIn Northern mythology* two ravens (Hugin and\\nMunin) sit on Odin s shoulders and fly forth\\nevery day to investigate Time; they* are a symbol\\nof the omniscience of the god. The Roman\\naugurs regarded the raven as the bird of m.ost\\nevil import. As the symbol of the shades of the\\ndead the Hindus gave him the food intended for\\nthe dead. Much more important for our pur-\\npose is the fact that the vikings on their voyages\\nwere in the habit of carrying many ravens with\\nI them, which they let fly free from time to time\\nto discover the direction of the land. Greenland\\nis said to have been discovered in this way. Alex-\\nander the Great also is reported to have em-\\nployed ravens to guide him.f\\n8. And he sent out a dove to see if the waters had abated\\nfrom off the face of the ground.\\nFrom verse ten, which speaks of Noah s wait-\\n^thologi\\ns Lexik\\n(3^\\nGrimm, Deutsche Mythologie, i. 122.\\nf Meyer s Conversations Lexikon, 5te Auf., art. Rabe.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0366.jp2"}, "367": {"fulltext": "The Sending Forth of the Birds\\ning yet seven other days before sending out the\\ndove a second time, it would appear that seven\\ndays, the mention of which is omitted in the\\ntext, elapsed between the sending of the raven\\nand the sending of the dove the first time. This\\nis important in calculating the duration of the\\nFlood.\\n9. But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot,\\nand she returned to him in the ark, for waters were on the\\nface of the whole earth.\\nIt is unnecessary for me to say much of the\\ndove, one of the best known of birds, which, on\\naccount of its gentleness, its fertility, and its\\nmysterious cooing, Christianity has associated\\nwith the Holy Spirit. Among the ancients, the\\nChinese and Egyptians used doves as we do still,\\nto transmit messages. By their assistance the\\nGreeks sent to Athens the news of their victories\\nover the Persians. The Romans also employed\\ncarrier pigeons, at the latest date, under the em-\\nperors. Diocletian is said to have established a\\nregular pigeon post. Ihering confidently as-\\nserts that the dove was the marine compass of the\\nBabylonians, and that every ship going to sea had\\ndoves on board, which were let loose if it was de-\\nsired to ascertain the direction of the neighbor-\\ning coast or islands. f Although Ihering gives\\nno authority for this statement, it is extremely\\nprobable, and this circumstance in itself indi-\\ncates that our account of the sending out of the\\nbirds originated among a sea-faring people, not\\namong the Hebrews, who never were navigators.\\nMeyer s Con. Lex., art. Tauben.\\nf Evolution of the Aryan, 170, 171.\\n(329)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0367.jp2"}, "368": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nAnd he put forth his hand and took her and brought her\\ninto the ark.\\n10. And he waited yet seven days more, and again he sent\\nforth the dove out of the ark.\\n11. And the dove came to him at eventide, and behold,\\nin her beak a fresh oHve leaf. So Noah knew that the\\nJ waters were abated from ofif the face of the earth.\\nThe fresh olive leaf was a sign to Noah that\\nthe waters had fallen considerably, as the olive\\ndoes not grow on high mountains.*\\n12. And he waited seven days longer and sent out the\\ndove, but this time she did not return to him again.\\n13 And Noah removed the roof of the ship (ark) and\\nlooked out, and lo the face of the ground was dry.\\nThis verse throws light on the sending out of\\nthe birds. The window mentioned above was\\napparently a little hatch in the cover of the great\\nchest, so high above Noah s head that looking\\nthrough it he could see nothing but a small patch\\nof sky. Hence he was obHged to depend on birds\\nto take observations for him. We must re-\\nmember, however, that this episode of the birds\\nis taken directly from the Babylonian Flood\\nstory, or, rather, it is a part of it. The Baby-,\\nIonian Noah, however, has a rigged ship, not a\\nchest, and the birds were originally introduced\\nwith reference to navigation.\\n20. And Noah built an altar to Jahveh, and took of every\\nclean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt\\nofferings upon the altar.\\nNoah s exit from the ark was omitted here be-\\ncause it was related more circumstantially by the\\nPriestly Writer. His first act most naturally is a\\nDillmann.\\n(330)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0368.jp2"}, "369": {"fulltext": "Origin of Altar\\nsolemn sacrifice of thanksgiving to Jahveh for\\nhis own preservation and for the preservation of\\nthose he loved, an example to many persons who\\nask for the prayers of the Church on going to sea,\\nbut who forget to give thanks when they safely\\nreach land. This is the first mention of an altar\\nin the Bible. Such an act as the erection of an\\naltar and the offering of sacrifice in Armenia we\\nmay be very sure would not be tolerated by the\\nPriestly Writer, since he held to the unhistorical\\nidea that an altar might be reared only in Jerusa-\\nlem, and that acceptable sacrifice could be of-\\nfered only by the sons of Aaron. This view, how-\\never, is not shared by the Jehovist, and it is con-\\ntradicted on every page of Israel s early history.\\nThe motive underlying the development of the\\naltar seems to have been something like this:\\nThe early Semites, including the Hebrews, be-\\nlieved that every object of Nature which re-\\nminded them of the greatness or the goodness of\\nGod, such as a refreshing fountain, a fine tree, a\\nrock, or a mountain, was the abiding place of\\ndeity. They were therefore in the habit of bring-\\ning gifts and offerings to such a place, exposing\\nthem on the rock, hanging them on the tree, or\\npouring oil over a stone, as Jacob did in Bethel\\nwhen he said, Jahveh is indeed in this place,\\nalthough I did not know it. Charming as this\\nbelief was, it was a great advance when men\\nlearned that the Deity not only lived among the\\nobjects He had created, but that He would also\\ntake up His abode among men, and that where an\\nartificial heap of stones was raised and sacrifice\\nwas offered the god was present and the sacrifice\\nwas accepted. The tendency in Israel, however,\\n(331)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0369.jp2"}, "370": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwhich finally resulted in the one central sanctuary\\nat Jerusalem, gained ground slowly. For a long\\ntime it was believed that Jahveh was to be found\\nonly on certain ancient mountains, or that He\\npreferred to dwell in the neighborhood of some\\nold sanctuary, where He had been worshipped\\ntime out of mind. This is why places like Bethel\\nand Shechem, Hebron and Mount Carmel, were\\nregarded as so sacred that people would travel\\na long distance to worship there. Even after\\nthese old places of worship were discredited and\\nthe altar of Jerusalem alone was recognized, the\\npresence of God was still a very local thing, and\\nfrom the time the Jews were expelled from Jeru-\\nsalem, to this day, no sacrifice has been offered by\\nthem.*\\n21. And Jahveh smelled the sweet fragrance, and Jahveh\\nsaid in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any\\nmore on account of man, for the thought of man s heart\\nis evil from its youth up, and I will not again smite every\\nliving thing as I have done.\\nThe religious significance of this verse is very\\npeculiar. The conception of Jahveh pacified by\\nthe sweet smell of burning fat and flesh is cer-\\ntainly crude, though the expression may be only\\nan echo of the Babylonian story, which is cruder\\nstill. The motive of Jahveh s determination not\\nto destroy human life again is left uncertain. Is\\nit because the extinction of so bad a creature as\\nman is not worth the sacrifice of earth s crea-\\ntures, or is it that Jahveh sorrowfully takes for\\ngranted that the wickedness of man is innate and\\npermanent, and despairs of making him better?\\n*See W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 184, 189,\\n358, ff. Also Hastings Diet, of the Bible, 1898, art. Altar.\\n(332)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0370.jp2"}, "371": {"fulltext": "The Priestly Writer s Story\\nEither thought is depressing, but of man s im-\\nprovement by God s help and of his final victory\\nover evil there is not a word. So even the Flood\\nhas failed to accomplish its drastic purpose, and\\nthe Jehovist s story ends merely with the promise\\nthat henceforth the regular processes of Nature\\nshall not be interrupted on man s account.\\n22. While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, cold\\nand heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not\\ncease.\\nI refrain from calling your attention to the\\ngreat salient characteristics of this story, as I can\\nbring them out better in connection with the nar-\\nrative of the Priestly Writer. I therefore merely\\nremind you that in the document of the Jehovist,\\nsupplemented by a few verses of the Redactor,\\nwe still have a perfectly intelligible and tolerably\\ncomplete account of the Flood. The two prin-\\ncipal episodes lacking in the Jehovist s narratives\\nare the building of the ark and the departure\\nfrom the ark; and they are lacking because they\\nare related more acceptably by the Priestly\\nWriter, to whose account I now turn. I think\\nall will perceive the difference in the style and in\\nthe order of ideas.\\nPriestly Writer s Story of the Flood\\nChapter vi. 9, 10, 11. This is the history of Noah: Noah\\nwas a righteous man, a perfect man among his contem-\\nporaries. Noah walked with Elohim. And Noah begot\\nthree sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.* But the earth was\\ncorrupted before Elohim, and the earth was full of violence.\\nWe learn the number and the names of Noah s sons first from\\nthe Priestly Writer.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0371.jp2"}, "372": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThe Priestly Writer says nothing about the\\ncause of this corruption. In the first chapter of\\nGenesis he described how God made all things\\ngood; in his genealogy of the patriarchs he let\\nsigns appear of man s increasing deterioration.\\nNow the fall from God is complete, and the cor-\\nruption of life calls for judgment. According to\\nhim this corruption extends to all flesh, including\\neven the animals. Rapine and violence have be-\\ncome the rule.\\n12. Then Elohim saw that the earth was profoundly cor-\\nrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth.\\n13. And Elohim said to Noah, The end of all flesh is\\ndetermined before me, for the earth is filled with wanton\\nviolence through them. So I am about to destroy them\\nfrom ofif the earth.\\n14. Make for thyself an ark [a chest] of pine wood, with\\ncells [nests] thou shalt make the ark, and thou shalt smear\\nit with pitch [bitumen] inside and outside.\\nThe cells or compartments are for the differ-\\nent animals and birds. It is very plain that these\\nwords were written for a people who knew noth-\\ning of ship building. The ark is merely a great\\nbox, not a keeled vessel. It can only float, and is\\nincapable of propulsion either by sails or by oars.\\nThe direction to caulk it would be superfluous to\\nanyone acquainted with the building of ships.\\n15. And according to these measurements shalt thoti\\nmake it: the length of the ark, three hundred cubits; its\\nbreadth, fifty cubits; and its height, thirty cubits.\\nIt is extraordinary that the precise length of a\\nlinear standard so frequently mentioned in the\\nBible as the Hebrew cubit should be unknown to\\nus yet such is the case. The natural cubit, as its\\n(334)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0372.jp2"}, "373": {"fulltext": "The Hebrew Cubit\\nname implies, is the distance from the elbow\\n{kvI^itov, Latin, ulna, ell) to the end of the mid-\\ndle finger. As this varies in different persons, it\\nhelps us to no exact conclusion. The matter is\\nfurther complicated by the fact that the Hebrews\\nat different times employed two different linear\\nstandards both called cubits {ammah). Ezekiel,*\\nin calculating his imaginary temple, tells us that\\nhe makes use of a cubit (evidently an older cubit)\\nwhich is one hand breadth longer than the cubit\\nin common use. The common cubit, according\\nto all accounts, was divided into six hand\\nbreadths. Ezekiel s cubit, therefore, must have\\ncontained seven hand breadths. Unfortunately,\\nthe breadth of the human hand varies as much as\\nthe length of the forearm, and no material object\\nmeasured in terms of the Hebrew cubit has\\ncome down to us. The length of the old Egyp-\\ntian cubit we know from measuring sticks pre-\\nserved in Egyptian tombs. It equalled 527 mm.,\\nor about 20.74 English inches, and was divided\\ninto seven hand breadths. It may, therefore, very\\nwell have corresponded with the older Hebrew\\nstandard mentioned by Ezekiel. The Egyptians\\nalso possessed a smaller cubit of six hand\\nbreadths, containing 450 mm., or 17.71 inches.\\nThat the Egyptian cubit was the standard em-\\nployed in Israel in the earliest times is by no\\nmeans certain. In the light of the Tel-el-amarna\\ntablets it would seem probable that the early He-\\nbrew standards of measurement were borrowed\\nfrom Babylon. The Babylonian linear standard\\nwas slightly greater than the Egyptian. The\\nBabylonians likewise possessed two cubits, one\\n*Ezek. xl. 5, xliii. 13.\\n(335)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0373.jp2"}, "374": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nestimated from the scale on the drawing board of\\nthe statue of Gudea, found in Telloh, in South\\nBabylonia, of mm., or about 19.58 English\\ninches; and another larger royal cubit of 550\\nmm., or 21.55 EngHsh inches. It will be seen\\nthat the Babylonian cubit stands to the Egyptian\\nas II :io, or more nearly as 22:21. In any case,\\nthe Hebrew cubit corresponds with the smaller\\ncubit of six hand breadths, and opinion still leans\\nto the cubit of Egypt rather than to that of Baby-\\nlon. All the old rabbinical calculations based on\\neggs, barleycorns, etc., lead to nothing. Neither\\ndo the dimensions of Solomon s temple, the con-\\ntents of the brazen sea, etc., any longer lead to\\ncertain conclusions.* I know of only one object\\nmeasured by Hebrew standards to which I can\\npoint. In the celebrated Siloam inscription dis-\\ncovered in Jerusalem in 1880 we read, The\\nwater flowed from the spring [i.e., the Virgin s\\nspring] to the pool for a distance of 1200 cubits.\\nCaptain Conders, who measured the tunnel,\\nfound it to be 537.6 m., or about 1763.77 English\\nfeet in length. From this measurement, which\\nit must be confessed is rough, the length of the\\nHebrew cubit would be about 448 mm., or 17.9\\ninches. This is surprisingly near the lesser Egyp-\\ntian cubit of 17.71 inches, considering the clumsy\\nmethod by which the Hebrew cubit was cal-\\nculated.!\\nEstimating the Hebrew cubit roughly at 18\\ninches, the length of the ark would be 450 feet,\\nSee F. Hultsch, Griechische und Romische Metrologie.\\nBerlin, 1882, p. 437, etc.\\nf See Nowack s Hebr. Alterthumer, i. 199 ff., and Ben-\\nzinger, 178 ff.\\n(336)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0374.jp2"}, "375": {"fulltext": "The Ark\\nits breadth 75 feet, and its height 45 feet. Its di-\\nmensions, therefore, are not very different from\\nthose of a large steamship of the present time.\\nWe must remember, however, that the ark was\\nsimply an oblong chest, not a moulded vessel. Its\\nfloor space would be about 33,750 square feet.\\nMultiplying this by three for the three stories, we\\nshould have a total floor space of 101,250 square\\nfeet. Allowing each animal a standing room of\\n5 feet square, or 25 square feet, the ark would\\nhave accommodated four thousand and fifty ani-\\nmals, without allowing any space for their prov-\\nender. Whether a chest of these proportions\\nwould maintain its equilibrium has been ques-\\ntioned, and answered by the Mennonite Peter\\nJensen and by other Dutchmen, who, in the sev-\\nenteenth century, built several arks of these pro-\\nportions on a reduced scale, which proved able to\\nfloat and to carry a cargo.* Such vessels, of\\ncourse, could not withstand a heavy sea, and\\nNoah s ark did not go to sea. It merely floated\\non the flood as houses float in a freshet. The\\nnext features of the ark are very obscure.\\n16. A window thou shalt make to the ark above, a cubit\\nwide shalt thou make it.\\nTo this it may be objected that so small a win-\\ndow would give neither light nor air to so large\\na vessel. Others translate this word roof, as\\na roof is not otherwise mentioned, and the ark\\nwould certainly require a roof to prevent it from\\nfilling with rain. Dillmann ingeniously thinks of\\nan air space a cubit high under the roof of the\\nark, and running all the way around it, which\\nDillmann.\\n(337)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0375.jp2"}, "376": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwould have contributed greatly to the comfort of\\nthe passengers, could those in the lower stories\\nhave partaken of its benefits.\\nAnd the door of the ark shalt thou place in its side.\\nWhether in the long side or in the end we are\\nnot told.\\nAnd with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou\\nmake it.\\nSt. Augustine was perfectly right in thinking\\nthat it would have taken Noah a hundred years\\nto make such a vessel, even if he had had good\\ntools.\\n17, 18. For behold, I am bringing the flood waters on\\nthe earth, to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life\\nfrom under the heavens. All that is on the earth will die.\\nBut I will est?blish my covenant with thee, and thou shalt\\nenter the ark, thou and thy sons, and thy wife and thy sons\\nwives with thee.\\nThis is the first mention in the Bible of the\\ngreat word covenant which played so important\\na part in the religion of the Hebrews. It means\\nhere what it means always, a solemn engagement\\ninto which God deigns to enter with man, a\\npromise that if man will do his part God will not\\nfail him. The nature of all God s covenants is\\nfinely brought out in this passage. God prom-\\nises to save Noah from destruction on the condi-\\ntion that Noah will do what he can to save him-\\nself. Noah, on his side, has faith in God. He be-\\nlieves that the calamity of which God warned him\\nis coming, and he prepares to meet it. God,\\n(338)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0376.jp2"}, "377": {"fulltext": "Collecting the Animals\\nhowever, does not build the ark for him. Noah\\nhas to do that himself. God tells him that he will\\nneed an ark, gives him the plan, and lets him ex-\\necute it, an admirable picture of the way God\\nsaves men by teaching them to save themselves.\\n19. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of each\\nsort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with\\nthee, male and female shall they be.\\n20. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after its kind,\\nof every thing which creeps on the ground after its kind,\\ntwo of each shall go with thee into the ark to be kept alive.\\nIt is not said that God imposed on Noah the\\nduty of capturing all these birds and beasts,\\nwhich would have been a most tiresome task, and\\nwould have caused him to wander far and wide.\\nThey are rather represented as coming to Noah\\nof their own accord in an orderly procession, two\\nand two, male and female.\\n21. And thou shalt take to thyself all food which is eaten,\\nand gather it beside thee, and it shall be for nourishment\\nfor thee and for them.\\n22. Thus did Noah: according to all that Elohim com-\\nmanded him, so did he.\\nChapter vii. 6. Now Noah was six hundred years old\\nwhen the deluge of waters was on the earth.\\nII. In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the\\nsecond month, on the seventeenth day of the month,* all\\nthe springs of the great abyss gushed out and the windows\\nof heaven were opened.\\nSo the Priestly Writer explains the coming of\\nthe Flood strictly in accordance with his cos-\\nmical views laid down in the first chapter of Gen-\\nesis. The flood waters came from two sources\\nfirst, from the great abyss (Tehom) beneath the\\nearth, whose depths, confined by God at creation,\\nThe existence of the calendar is here tacitly assumed.\\n(339)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0377.jp2"}, "378": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nsuddenly burst their bonds. These fountains, ris-\\ning through subterranean channels, over-\\nwhelm the earth, as they did before Elohim sep-\\narated them from the dry land. Secondly, the\\nheavenly reservoirs contribute their quota. Elo-\\nhim opens the windows of the firmament which\\nholds the upper waters in check, and lets them\\npour down in rain upon the earth. In short, the\\nworld returns to chaos, and the coming of the\\nflood is far more powerfully depicted than by the\\nJehovist s forty days of rain. Is this sudden erup-\\ntion of waters from beneath merely a part of the\\nPriestly Writer s cosmical machinery? Or is it\\nbased on an ancient tradition of some seismic dis-\\nturbance which launched a tidal wave of gigantic\\nheight That is a question we shall have to dis-\\ncuss later.\\n13. In that same day went Noah and his sons, Shem,\\nHam, and Japheth into the ark, and Noah s wife and the\\nthree wives of his sons with them into the ark.\\nNoah s wife, it will be noticed, is always men-\\ntioned after his sons.\\n14. They and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle\\nafter their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on\\nthe ground after its kind, and every winged thing, every\\nbird of every sort.\\n15. And they went in to Noah, into the ark, two and two,\\nof all flesh in which is the breath of life.\\n16. And they that went in were a male and a female of\\nall flesh, as Elohim had commanded him.\\n18. And the waters increased more and more upon the\\nearth, and all the high mountains which were under the\\nwaters.\\n19. And the waters prevailed to the utmost upon the\\nearth, and all the high mountains which were under the\\nwhole heaven were covered.\\n20. Fifteen cubits did the waters prevail, so that the\\nmountains were covered.\\n(340)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0378.jp2"}, "379": {"fulltext": "Height of the Waters\\nThe object of the writer is to prove conclu-\\nsively that all humanity and all animals, except\\nthose in the ark, perished. Hence it was neces-\\nsary that all mountains should be covered. This,\\nof course, is a physical impossibility through any\\ncauses known to us, such as tidal waves, rains,\\nhurricanes, etc. Exactly how many times all the\\nwater now on the earth would have to be multi-\\nplied to produce such an effect I am not prepared\\nto say. But it is not necessary to call in the tes-\\ntimony of geologists like Lyell to prove that no\\nsuch universal deluge has taken place during the\\npresent geologic era. Even if such masses of\\nwater had been heaped up on the earth, what\\nwould have become of them? How would it be\\npossible for them to disappear in six months, as\\nour writer says, and to leave the earth in its\\nformer condition, even with its vegetation unin-\\njured? According to the statement of the\\nPriestly Writer, the waters stood nearly twenty-\\nthree feet high above the tops of the highest\\nmountains, but soon after the flood began to\\nabate the ark grounded on Mount Ararat.\\nMount Ararat, then, in the opinion of our writer,\\nwas the highest mountain in the world, as not\\nuntil two and a half months after the ark had\\ngrounded did the peaks of other mountains be-\\ncome visible. But, on the contrary, there are\\nother mountains more than ten thousand feet\\nhigher than the mountains of Ararat. Again we\\nread, after two months and a half had elapsed,\\nthat the waters were entirely drained from off the\\nearth. According to this calculation, supposing\\nthe waters to have subsided at a uniform rate.\\nMount Ararat must have been nearly twice as\\n(341)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0379.jp2"}, "380": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nhigh as any other mountain in the world, which\\nis a great mistake. Some peaks of Mount Ararat,\\nhowever, are about seventeen thousand feet high,\\nand if these were submerged the whole inhabited\\nworld would have been covered. But at the time\\nat which the Hebrew tradition places the Flood,\\nEgypt, in the valley of the Nile, had attained a\\nhigh degree of civilization, and not only did it\\nescape destruction, but it has not even a tradi-\\ntion that any flood took place.\\n21. Then all flesh which moves on earth died, birds and\\ncattle and beasts and every creeping thing which swarms\\non the earth, and mankind.\\n24. And the waters increased on the earth for one hun-\\ndred and fifty days.\\nChapter viii. i, 2. Then E^ohim remembered Noah and\\nall the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the\\nark. And Elohim caused a wind to pass over the earth\\nso that the waters fell, and the springs of the abyss and the\\nwindows of heaven were closed.\\n3*^. And after one hundred and fifty days the waters were\\ndecreasing.\\n4. So the ark stood still on the mountains of Ararat, in\\nthe seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month.\\n(342)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0380.jp2"}, "381": {"fulltext": "Mountains of Ararat\\nChapter Seventeen:\\nThe End of the Deluge. The Flood Tradition\\nin Antiquity\\nWE left the ark resting on one of the peaks\\nof Ararat, which, in the estimation of\\nour writer, was the highest mountain in the\\nworld. By the mountains of Ararat we natur-\\nally understand the two peaks of Great and Little\\nArarat in Armenia, between Russia, Turkey, and\\nPersia. That, however, is not precisely what the\\nHebrew writer meant to convey. Ararat is men-\\ntioned in two other places in the Old Testament,\\neach time as a country. Once, after the sons of\\nSennacherib had murdered their father, we read\\nthat they fled to Ararat,* and once Jeremiah\\ncalled on the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and\\nAschenaz to rise against Babylon. f There is\\ntherefore no definite reason to associate the\\nmountains of Ararat with any particular peak.\\nFrom the description of Noah s landing place as\\nthe highest mountain in the world, we should\\ninfer that the writer did not possess any definite\\ngeographical knowledge. There is also no good\\nreason for associating the mountains called Ara-\\nrat on our modern maps with the landing place\\nof Noah. The Armenians simply called them\\nMasis. Several other mountains have also been\\n*2 Kings, xix. 37. f Jeremiah, li. 27.\\n(343)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0381.jp2"}, "382": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nidentified with Noah s landing place. St. Je-\\nrome speaks definitely of the plain of the mid-\\ndle Araxes, at the foot of the great mountain\\n(Taurus), relying on an older tradition. The\\nJews from the first century invariably identified\\nthe country Ararat with Kardu (in Targums, also\\nPeshitta). Kardu is the land of the Kurds, its\\nmountains lie between the Tigris, the Upper Zab,\\nand Lake Van, where A. H. Sayce seems to lo-\\ncate Noah s landing.f With this tradition\\nBerosus seems to agree, if we read Cordyean in-\\nstead of Corcyraean.$ Against this Noldeke\\nrightly objects that the Kurds could not have\\ncomposed the kingdom in the time of Jeremiah,\\nhence Kurdistan is improbable. Neither can\\nArarat by any means be identified with Mount\\nNisir, the landing place of Sit-napistim, which lies\\neast of Assyria. It is therefore impossible to de-\\nfine Noah s landing place more exactly than by\\nsaying that it took place on one of the mountains\\nof the ancient country of Ararat, in southeastern\\nArmenia, between the Araxes and Lake Van.\\nThe mountain we call Ararat lies almost in the\\nIcentre of Armenia, nearly equally distant from\\nthe Black Sea and the Caspian, the Mediter-\\nranean and the Persian Gulf, on a plateau about\\nthree thousand feet above the level of the sea.\\nIt rises in the form of a graceful, isolated cone to\\nthe height of 17,112 feet above the sea. An ex-\\nplorer who ascended Ararat in 1868 declared that\\nno mountain he had ever seen made on him the\\nimpression of the Armenian Giant, whose\\nJerome on Isaiah, xxxvii. 38, quoted by Bochart.\\nI Hastings Bible Diet., art. Ararat.\\n:f Syncellus Chron, in Cory s Fragments, 19. Also in\\nJosephus, Antiq. i. 3, 6.\\n(344)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0382.jp2"}, "383": {"fulltext": "Landing Place of Ark\\nsteep sides for nine thousand feet were covered\\nwith snow.*\\nProfessor Tiele and Dr. Kosters, in the new\\nEncyclopaedia Biblica, attempt to make the\\nlanding place of Noah coincide with the moun-\\ntains in the land of Nisir, placing the latter further\\nto the northeast, just south of the Caspian Sea.\\nThere lies the celebrated mythical sky-mountain,\\nElburz, called by the northern Iranians Hara-\\nberezaiti, or Hara haraiti bares. The latter name\\nTiele and Kosters think may have been con-\\nfounded by the Hebrew writer with the land of\\nUrarti, or Ararat. In this conjecture I see they\\nhave not been followed by the map-maker of the\\nEncyclopaedia.! (Every critic should be his own\\nmap-maker.) Welcome as would be an agree-\\nment between the cuneiform and the Biblical\\naccounts of the landing place of the ark, this con-\\njecture can hardly be accepted, i. The moun-\\ntains of Nisir would have to be moved from the\\ncountry southeast of the lower Zab mentioned in\\nAsurnasirbal s inscription to the land directly\\nsouth of the Caspian Sea. 2. There is nothing\\nto show that the Biblical writers knew of the dis-\\ntant mountains of Elburz by either of their\\nnames, and the corruption of Hara haraiti bares\\nto Ararat is a mere conjecture. 3. Tiele and\\nKosters observe a discreet silence in regard to\\nthe tradition of the landing place of the ark\\npreserved by Berosus. It is a fact of great\\nimportance, however, that Berosus, both in the\\nFlood story preserved by Alexander Polyhistor\\nEncyclo. Britannica, art. Ararat.\\njSchrader, K. A. T. 53.\\nSee map of Syria, Assyria, etc.\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0^4 V\\n(345)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0383.jp2"}, "384": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nand in that of Abydenus, specifically mentions\\nArmenia as the landing place of the ark. Alex-\\nander Polyhistor, it is true, first merely says that\\nthe ark stranded on some mountain, but Xisu-\\nthros, in taking leave of his friends, informs them\\nthat the land in which they are is Armenia.\\nAbydenus, however, informs us that after Sisu-\\nthros had embarked in his ship, he sailed im-\\nmediately to Armenia. We have here, there-\\nfore, a corrobation of the Biblical account, which\\nis all the stronger because it is indirect. Genesis\\nmerely says that the ark grounded on a mountain\\nof the land of Ararat (eastern Armenia), while\\nBerosus, using the name in vogue in his day,\\ncalls the landing place Armenia. Of late years\\nthe singular confirmation of Berosus history\\nthrough the cuneiform sources have led scholars\\nto place a high estimate on the accuracy of the\\ntraditions recorded by him. Neither does this\\nnarrative appear to have been tampered with by\\nthe writers through whose hands it passed, as\\nwe can show in at least one instance. Alexander\\nPolyhistor and Abydenus relate that in after ages\\nthe people collected fragments of the ark which\\nthey used for charms and amulets, and this tale\\nJosephus, who also drew his information from\\nBerosus, records in almost the exact language of\\nAlexander.* Since Scheil s fragment of the\\nFlood story of Sippara was discovered, it is rec-\\nognized that more than one Babylonian Flood\\nstory existed in ancient times, and Berosus, who\\nspeaks constantly of Sippara, may very well have\\nfollowed that tradition rather than the tradi-\\nCompare Josephus, Ant. Jud. i. 3, 6, with Alex. Polyh. in\\nCory s Fracrments, 29.\\n(346)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0384.jp2"}, "385": {"fulltext": "Armenia the Landing Place.\\ntion contained in Izdubar, from which he fre-\\nquently departs so widely. I abide by the opin-\\nion, therefore, that Ararat and Armenia repre-\\nsent one ancient tradition of the landing place of\\nthe ark which is not identical with the landing in\\nNisir, and that this old tradition is not to be\\nshifted to the land south of the Caspian Sea on\\nthe strength of a doubtful etymology.\\nIn regard to the reason why the mountains of\\nArarat or Armenia were chosen as the landing\\nplace of the ark, I may venture the following ob-\\nservations\\n1. It appears to be certain that the Priestly\\nWriter in mentioning Ararat followed an ancient\\ntradition preserved by Berosus. Scheil s copy\\nof the Flood tablet of Sippara, which dates from\\nthe twenty-second century before Christ, gives\\nus a hint as to how old this tradition may be,\\nwhile the fact that even at Berosus time people\\ncontinued to look for pieces of the ark in Ar-\\nmenia indicates that the legend which fixed the\\nlanding place of the ark in the mountains of Ar-\\nmenia had sunk deep into the popular mind.\\n2. Although it is plain from the allusions of\\nIsaiah and Jeremiah to Ararat that the Hebrews\\npossessed some geographical knowledge of Ar-\\nmenia, it does not follow that such was the case\\nat the time the Flood legend was formed in Bab-\\nylonia. On the contrary, there is nothing more\\nmythical in Berosus account than his allusions\\nto this mountain. After being warned by Kro-\\nnos,* Xisuthros asks the deity whither he is to\\nsail. The directness of the reply startles us, To\\nthe gods and Abydenus adds, he sailed imme-\\nIn Alex. Polyh.\\n(347)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0385.jp2"}, "386": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ndiately to Armenia. The lofty peaks of Ar-\\nmenia, therefore, appear to have been regarded\\nby the Babylonians as a mythical mountain of\\nthe gods. Another mythical touch in Berosus\\nis the translation of Xisuthros pilot, which oc-\\ncurs in no other version. This circumstance\\nshows us that Xisuthros voyage was not yet\\nover, and that he needed a pilot to guide him\\nto the abode of the gods. When Xisuthros dis-\\nembarked he was immediately translated he was\\ntaken up to live with the gods, and was seen no\\nmore on earth. That the Babylonians enter-\\ntained belief in such a mythical mountain is well\\nknown. Indeed, it is probably from them that\\nthe idea passed to so many other peoples. Like\\nother nations, they placed this mountain to the\\nnorth,* and the great northern mountains of Ar-\\narat, so long as they were little known, would\\nhave served well for this purpose. Even the\\nHebrews were by no means strangers to this be-\\nlief. I remind you of the striking description of\\nthe mountain of God in Ezekiel, and of the\\nequally striking words of Isaiah\\nThou didst say in thy heart: the heavens will I scale,\\nI will sit on the Mount of Assembly in the recesses of\\nthe North,\\nI will mount above even the hills of the clouds, I will\\nmatch the Most High. f\\nIn the Book of Genesis the mythical features\\nof this mountain have almost wholly disap-\\npeared. Otherwise the writer would hardly\\nhave ventured to assert that the waters of the\\nFlood rose over the mountain of God. The only\\nJensen, Cosmol. 23.\\nf Is. xiv. 13, 14. Cheyne s translation.\\n(348)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0386.jp2"}, "387": {"fulltext": "Duration of Flood\\nmythical feature of Ararat is its vast height. It\\nis not only the highest mountain of the world, but\\nit is more than twice as high as any other moun-\\ntain. In the account of Manu s flood in the Sata-\\npatha Brahmana, Manu was directed to sail to\\nyonder Northern Mountain, which was after-\\nward called Manu s Descent.\\n5. And the waters went on decreasing until the tenth\\nmonth; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month,\\nthe summits of the mountains appeared.\\n13^ And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year\\n[of Noah s life], in the first month, on the first day of the\\nmonth, that the waters were drained off from the earth.\\n14. And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day\\nof the month, the earth was dry.\\nThis is the place to ascertain the length of the\\nFlood in the estimation of the Priestly Writer.\\nThe Flood, it will be remembered, according to\\nhis computation, began on the seventeenth day\\nof the second month. The waters increased for\\none hundred and fifty days, after which time the\\nark grounded on the mountain on the seven-\\nteenth day of the seventh month. On the first\\nday of the tenth month, as we have just seen, the\\ntops of the mountains became visible. On the\\nfirst day of the first month of the next year the\\nearth was drained of the waters, and on the\\ntwenty-seventh day of the second month the\\nearth was entirely dry. The flood, therefore,\\nlasted from the seventeenth day of the second\\nmonth of one year to the twenty-seventh day of\\nthe second month of the next year, or one year\\nand eleven days. This calculation seems to be\\nvery simple. The early Hebrews employed the\\nlunar month of twenty-nine days, twelve hours\\n(349)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0387.jp2"}, "388": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nand forty-four minutes.* Twelve such months\\ncontained three hundred and fifty-four days;\\nadding eleven days, we obtain three hundred and\\nsixty-five days. The author therefore evidently\\nwishes to show that the Flood lasted a full solar\\nyear. But with this supposition his other calcu-\\nlations of time do not agree. Between the sev,-\\nenteenth day of the second month, when Noah\\nentered the ark, and the seventeenth day of the\\nseventh month, when the ark rested on Ararat,\\nexactly five months elapsed. If, as we suppose,\\nthese are lunar months, they would consist of\\none hundred and forty-seven or one hundred and\\nforty-eight days. On the contrary, the author\\nsays distinctly that they were one hundred and\\nfifty daySjt or even more than one hundred and\\nfifty days, if we allow a little time for the settUng\\nof the waters before the ark grounded. In this\\ncase, after all, the author had in mind a month of\\nthirty days, not the old lunar month. This is an\\ninconsistency, or perhaps we had better say a\\ndifficulty. The 354 11 365 days is very at-\\ntractive as assigning a full solar year to the\\nFlood; while on the other hand 360+ 11 371,\\nor 365 11 376, has no significance. Budde J\\nThis, however, was in early, probably in nomadic days. I\\nthink the lunar month is proved, among other things, by a week\\nof seven days, by the fact that the Hebrew day began in the even-\\ning, by the name for month, chodesh new moon, by the im-\\nportance of the new moon as a festival. This clumsy method of\\ndividing the year could hardly have continued long after the oc-\\ncupation of Canaan, and a month of thirty days seems to have\\nbeen in vogue before the Exile, probably borrowed from the\\nCanaanites. See Nowack, Hebr. Archaol. 215-217. Ben-\\nzinger, 199-200. The old lunar month is introduced here as a\\npiece of archaeology.\\nf Gen. viii. 3.\\nX Urgeschichte, 273.\\n(350)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0388.jp2"}, "389": {"fulltext": "Time of Year\\ntherefore conjectures that the one hundred and\\nf^fty days estimated as five months are merely\\nround numbers, which is improbable, as the\\nPriestly Writer is very careful in calculations of\\nthis sort. Dillmann, on the contrary, rightly ad-\\nmits that we have here two inconsistent calcula-\\ntions, probably from two different hands. One\\nrepresents the Flood as lasting for a full solar\\nyear (354 +11 days). The other calculation\\nrepresents the Flood as one hundred and fifty\\ndays in coming and doubtless as one hundred\\nand fifty days in going or, as lasting three hun-\\ndred days, i. e., ten months of thirty days. Per-\\nhaps this writer originally added two months for\\nthe drying of the earth, which v/ould round out a\\nyear of three hundred and sixty days. It will be\\nnoticed that the introduction of the one hundred\\nand fifty days, which caused so much disturbance,\\nis not necessary for the calculation of the Flood,\\nwhich rests on months and days of months. If\\nthe one hundred and fifty days were added by\\nthe editor, it is strange that he did not harmonize\\nthem better with the forty days of the Jehovist.\\nAs for the time of year when the Flood began,\\nwe are told that it came in the second month on\\nthe seventeenth day of the month. The old He-\\nbrew calendar dated the beginning of the year\\nfrom the autuqjn.* It is true, in the later parts\\nof the Pentateuch, the Priestly Writer states\\nthat the year began in the spring with the month\\nNisan (April), but he represents that change as\\nintroduced by Moses, f so that we may be sure he\\nwould not commit the mistake of regarding this\\n*Nowack, 220 Benzinger, igg. Cf. Exod. xxiii. i6, xxxiv. 22.\\nf Exod. xii. 2.\\n(35", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0389.jp2"}, "390": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nsystem as in vogue at the time of the Flood.\\nWith him, therefore, the year began with Tishri\\n(roughly, October), and the second month would\\nbe Marcheschvan, or November, when the heavy\\nrains of Palestine began to fall. Why the seven-\\nteenth day of the month was selected and not the\\nfifteenth, on which the full moon falls, has not\\nbeen discovered.*\\n15. Then Elohim spoke to Noah and said,\\n16. Go out of the ark, thou, and thy wife and thy sons\\nand thy sons wives with thee.\\n17. Bring out with thee all the beasts that are with thee,\\nof all flesh, birds and cattle, and every creeping thing that\\ncreeps on the earth, that they may swarm on the earth and\\nbe fruitful and multiply on the earth.\\n18. So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his\\nsons wives with him.\\n19. All animals, all creeping things, everything that\\nmoves on the earth, according to their species went out\\nwith him from the ark.\\nThe Priestly Writer s interest in creeping,\\ncrawling, and swarming creatures is truly aston-\\nishing. His too frequent allusions to these disa-\\ngreeable animals rather chill our interest in his\\nstory. One would suppose him to have been an\\nentomologist in love with his darling science, and\\nmore concerned in the fate of bugs than of men.\\nImmediately on the exit from the ark follows\\nGod s covenant with Noah.\\nChapter ix. i. Then Elohim blessed Noah and his sons,\\nard said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish\\nthe earth.\\nBacon Hebraica, viii. 85) conjectures that, according to the\\nJehovist, Noah had forty-seven days for building the ark and\\nseven days for collecting the animals. Supposing the warning to\\nhave been given him on the first day of the new year, the flood\\nwould have begun on the seventeenth day of the second month.\\nBoth the forty and the seven days, however, are mere conjectures.\\n(352)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0390.jp2"}, "391": {"fulltext": "Man s Relation to the Animals\\nThe first blessing and promise of fertility is\\nhere repeated. If there is anything which natu-\\nral reason and observation lead us to regard as\\nthe will of God, it is the eternal increase of life at\\nany price.\\n2. And the fear and dread of you shall be on all wild\\nanimals, and all birds of heaven, and on all that with which\\nthe ground is animated, and on all the fish of the sea; they\\nare given into your hands.\\nThat was not the case at first in the charming\\nParadise story of the Jehovist. There the ani-\\nmals lived with man on terms of friendly intimacy,\\nbut they did not dread him; and the time may\\ncome, if man grows good enough, when their\\nconfidence in him may be restored. It is a sad\\nfact that the most harmless animals fear man as\\ntheir worst foe. According to the Jehovist s con-\\nception, that was not God s intention. The atti-\\ntude of our Book toward the animal kingdom is\\nhumane and very beautiful. It presents a true\\npicture of the Golden Age, which, according to\\nthe belief of Isaiah,* will return to earth.\\n3. All that moves and lives shall serve you for food, just\\nlike the green herb, I give it all to you.\\nThis is an entirely new permission. Up to\\nthis time, only herb and fruit had been permitted\\nman as food, perhaps in recollection of the fact\\nthat man has not always been a carnivorous ani-\\nmal. Although the use of animal flesh is now al-\\nlowed, certain restrictions are imposed as to the\\nmanner in which flesh is to be prepared and con-\\nsumed.\\nIs. xi. 6-8.\\n*3 (353)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0391.jp2"}, "392": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n4. Only thou shalt not eat flesh with its soul, with its\\nblood.\\nThat ancient proscription has been religiously\\nobserved by devout Jews to this day, hence they\\nstill refuse to eat meat that is not prepared by a\\nJew. The meaning of the injunction seems to be\\nsomething like this: All nations have asked the\\nquestion, In what does animal life consist The\\nHebrew had a very simple and practical answer.\\nLife consists in blood; as soon as the blood is\\ndrained, Hfe disappears. But, as we have already\\nseen, life was regarded as emanating directly\\nfrom God. Therefore to drink blood is a kind of\\nsacrilege. This feeling was strengthened by be-\\nlief in blood as a means of atonement, the giving\\nback to God of the Hfe He had given. If the\\nblood of animals is sacred, far more sacred is the\\nblood of man.\\n5. And surely your own blood will I avenge, on every\\nbeast will I avenge it, and on every man; on every man s\\nbrother will I avenge a man s life.\\n6. He who sheds man s blood, by man shall his blood\\nbe shed, since in His own image Elohim made man.\\n7. But do you be fruitful and multiply, swarm in the\\nearth and replenish it.\\nThis is by no means the mere law of blood re-\\nvenge; it is also a noble assertion of the sanctity\\nof human life, founded solely on the fact of man s\\ncreation in the likeness of God. The command\\nto take the life of the murderer is not based on\\nthe duty of revenge and it is not laid upon the\\nrelatives of the murdered man. Neither can one\\nsay that it is founded exactly on morality and jus-\\ntice, since the punishment is extended to animals\\nalso. The command rests rather on the religious\\n(3M)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0392.jp2"}, "393": {"fulltext": "Sacredness of Human Life\\nmotive of punishing sin against God, whose im-\\nage the murderer destroys. Whatever our sen-\\ntiments may be on the subject of capital punish-\\nment, which is here plainly sanctioned, it is im-\\npossible not to be impressed by our author s\\ndeep sense of the sanctity of human life as com-\\ning from God. This noble verse has borne\\ngreat moral fruit, and Luther is quite right in\\nsaying that with this verse the foundation of all\\nhuman society is laid. He who touches man\\ntouches God a thought we can never afford to\\nforget.\\n8, 9, 10. Then Elohim said to Noah, and to his sons with\\nhim, I, lo! I, establish My covenant with you and with\\nyour descendants after you, and with every living thing\\nthat is with you, birds and cattle and wild beasts that are\\nwith you, with all animals on earth that come forth from the\\nark.\\nII. And I will establish My covenant with you, so that\\nno flesh shall be destroyed again by the waters of a flood;\\nnor shall there be a flood again to destroy the earth.\\nThis covenant can scarcely be called a religious\\ncompact between God and man, since it includes\\nthe animals also. It is a mere promise on the\\npart of God that such a universal deluge shall\\nnever return. As a rule, God s covenants are at-\\ntended by some confirming sign; here it is the\\nrainbow, the pledge of hope after distress, the\\nmost beautiful of all signs except the starry\\nheavens which God showed Abraham. Many\\nwriters assume that this was the first time the\\nrainbow had made its appearance, and some even\\nsuppose a change in the constitution of the at-\\nmosphere; but our story does not say that the\\nrainbow had never been seen before.\\n(355)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0393.jp2"}, "394": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge,\\n12. And God said, This is the sign of the covenant be-\\ntween Me and you and every living creature which is with\\nyou for perpetual generations.\\n13. I have placed My bow in the clouds, and it shall be a\\nsign of the covenant between Me and the earth.\\nThe rainbow, which Ezekiel calls the ap-\\npearance of the likeness of the glory of God, is\\nhere described as God s bow. Jesus, the son of\\nSirach, gives a fine description of the rainbow, t\\nLook upon the rainbow, and praise Him who\\nmade it. Very beautiful is it in its brightness;\\nit encompasses the heaven with its glorious circle\\nand the hands of the Highest have bended it.\\n14. 15. And when I bring the clouds over the earth, and\\nthe bow appears in the clouds, then will I remember the\\ncovenant that is between Me and you and every living\\ncreature of all flesh, and never again shall the waters of a\\nflood destroy all flesh.\\n16. And the bow shall be in the clouds, and I will look\\nupon it to remind Myself of the perpetual covenant that is\\nbetween Elohim and every living creature of all flesh which\\nis on the earth.\\nThe meaning of the rainbow has never been\\nso beautifully interpreted. It is born of the\\nstorm but when God sees it, it reminds Him of\\nHis promise never again to let the storm rise to\\na destroying Flood. Hence it is a sign and prom-\\nise that the storm is nearly at its end. Other na-\\ntions have interpreted the rainbow otherwise.\\nTo the Hindus it was the many-colored war-bow\\nof Indra.t In Greek mythology, personified as\\nEzek. i. 28.\\nI Sirach, xliii. Ii, 12; 1. 7.\\nI It would appear that the Hebrews also regarded the rainbow\\nas a war-bow by which God shot his arrows, the lightning, as in\\n(356)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0394.jp2"}, "395": {"fulltext": "The Rainbow\\nIris, it is the messenger of the gods, and also a\\nheaven-sent sign of war and other events.* The\\nRomans beHeved that the rainbow drinks up\\nwater from the earth, hence the saying bibit\\narcus, pluet hodie. t In the Edda, the rainbow\\nis the heavenly bridge on which the gods walk\\nand drive.J Besides these traditions many pop-\\nular superstitions cluster around the rainbow,\\nsuch as the danger of pointing the finger at the\\nrainbow, or that at the end of a rainbow hangs a\\ngolden key which opens a chest of treasure, or\\nthat gold pieces or pennies drop from the rain-\\nbow to the ground.!\\n17. So Elohim said to Noah, This is the sign of the\\ncovenant which I have estabhshed between Me and all\\nflesh which is upon the earth.\\n28. And Noah Hved after the flood three hundred and\\nfifty years,\\n29. So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty\\nyears; then he died.\\nThis is the end of the Priestly Writer s story of\\nthe Flood. We see then that we actually possess\\nindependent and almost complete Flood narra-\\ntives, carefully combined in Genesis, which can\\nbe separated without difficulty. The Jehovist s\\naccount lacked the building of the ark, the en-\\ntrance into and the exit from the ark. The\\nPriestly Writer s account lacks scarcely any-\\nthing. It is probably almost in the form in which\\nPsalm vii. 12, He hath bent His bow Hab. iii. 9, Thy\\nbow was made quite naked Lam. ii. 4, He hath bent His\\nbow, etc. The rainbow, therefore, here acquires a new meaning.\\nIt is a sign of peace and reconcihation, not of war.\\nIliad, xi. II, 27, 47.\\nt Plautus, Curcul. i. 2.\\niSaem. 44.\\nGrimm, Deutsche Mythol. ii. 610, 611.\\n(357)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0395.jp2"}, "396": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nit left its author s hand. When we compare the\\nPriestly Writer s document with the Jehovist s,\\nwe see that in spirit and conception, as well as in\\nexecution, they are very different. Notwith-\\nstanding the Priestly Writer s pecuHar dry style\\nand his wearisome repetition of certain choice\\nexpressions, his ideas are lofty, though they are\\nvery cold. He tells us that Noah was a righteous\\nman further than that, Noah remains a perfectly\\ncolorless character. God also is conceived in\\nmuch the same manner. The Priestly Writer care-\\nfully avoids all such anthropomorphical expres-\\nsions as that God repented, was grieved at\\nHis heart, that He shut the door after Noah,\\nor was pleased with the smell of the burning sacri-\\nfice. His Elohim is far removed from such hu-\\nman conduct and feeling. He is above the world\\nand acts more from an abstract sense of justice\\nthan from passion or emotion of any sort. The\\nPriestly Writer is entirely consistent with his\\naccount of creation in deriving the Flood from\\ntwo sources, the breaking up of the abyss and\\nthe opening of the windows of the firmament\\nwhere the heavenly waters are stored. His Flood\\nstory is the second long narrative from his pen\\nin Genesis. It is distinctly inferior in style and\\nelevation to his first chapter, but it possesses\\nmany of the peculiarities of that chapter. It is\\nwritten in the same dry, technical style, and ex-\\nhibits the same poverty of expression shown by\\nthe frequent repetition of words and phrases.\\nOn the other hand, the Priestly Writer s style is\\nvery workmanlike. He makes a telHng use of\\nmathematics, which gives quite a substantial air\\nto his story. In regard to the conflicting esti-\\n(358)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0396.jp2"}, "397": {"fulltext": "Comparison of Two Accounts\\nmates of the duration of the Flood, as we have\\nseen, the Priestly Writer asserts that the Flood\\nlasted from the seventeenth day of the second\\nmonth of one year to the twenty-seventh day of\\nthe second month of the following year, in any\\ncase a full solar year of three hundred and sixty-\\nfive days, and possibly a few days longer. The\\nJehovist, however, calculates very differently.\\nHe allows seven days to elapse after the warning\\nto collect the animals, and then forty days of con-\\ntinuous rain. At the end of the forty days Noah\\nsent out the raven; after seven days more, the\\ndove the first time. After seven days more he\\nsent out the dove the second time, which re-\\nturned with the olive leaf. After seven days\\nmore he sent the dove the third time. Accord-\\ning to the Jehovist s computation, therefore, the\\nFlood actually lasted for 40 21 =61 days, or,\\nwith the addition of the seven days before the\\nrain began, 68 days in all* In this computation,\\nas well as in many other particulars, the Jehovist\\nfollows the Babylonian cuneiform account much\\nmore closely than does the Priestly Writer. His\\nstory is more deeply penetrated with moral feel-\\ning than the Priestly Writer s. His whole nar-\\nrative moves less in the plane of the supernatural\\nand he gives us, in a fresh and genuine form, the\\nold traditions into which the Priestly Writer reads\\nmany of the reflections of a later age. I remind\\nyou merely of the episode of the birds, the build-\\ning of the altar, the sweet-smelling sacrifice, the\\nFrom the brief period of time allowed to elapse in the Je-\\nhovist s narrative between God s warning and the beginning of\\nthe P lood, the structure of the ark must have been much more\\nsimple.\\n(359)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0397.jp2"}, "398": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmore human conception of Jahveh, etc. We\\nmust also remember that the Redactor has dealt\\nmore freely with the Jehovist s narrative, from\\nwhich he has eliminated several important fea-\\ntures. Scholars, with scarcely an exception, re-\\ngard the Jehovist s account as much the older of\\nthe two. Whether the Priestly Writer had any\\nother independent Hebrew history before him, or\\nwhether he depended solely on the Jehovist s\\nnarrative for his knowledge of the Flood is a\\ncritical question I do not feel called upon to dis-\\ncuss here. It is certain that the Priestly Writer s\\ndescription of the ark contains several elements\\nnot to be found at present elsewhere, but we\\nmust remember that the greater portion of the\\nJehovist s description of the ark has perished.\\nWe come now to the important question of the\\norigin and the diffusion of the Flood Tradition.\\nAs you are aware, this is one of the most widely\\ndisseminated of human beliefs, and yet it is by no\\nmeans universal, as many persons pretend. It\\nwould be impossible and undesirable for me to\\ntrace exhaustively the history of the Flood tradi-\\ntion among all the peoples which possess it.*\\nMany of their tales and legends have no ascer-\\ntainable connection with our story. The plan I\\nshall pursue is to examine with care the ancient\\nflood narratives of the great cultured nations of\\nantiquity, with the hope of discovering their\\norigin, and to treat more superficially the legends\\nor reminiscences of floods among primitive races\\nin modern times. The literature to be examined\\nis considerable, but not overwhelmingly great.\\nI refer the reader to the table on the Flood tradition at the end\\nof this volume.\\n(36^)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0398.jp2"}, "399": {"fulltext": "Flood Traditions\\nAmong the great literary nations of the old\\nworld, only the Hebrews, the Hindus, the Baby-\\nlonians and the Greeks have preserved unmistak-\\nable traditions of a deluge. The Persians have\\na similar story which is worth noticing. The\\nPhoenicians may very well have possessed an\\nancient native deluge story, but their literature\\nhas almost altogether perished, and what re-\\nmains of it has come down to us through so many\\nhands that its authenticity is dubious. Represen-\\ntations of the ark found in Vetulonia (Italy)\\nand in Sardinia, supposed to be the work of\\nLITTLE NOAh S ARK FOUND IN VETULONIA\\nPhoenician artists, one of which dates from the\\nseventh century B.C., make it easy to believe\\nthat the Phoenicians were acquainted with the\\ntraditions of a deluge.* There are also a few old\\nGermanic and Slavonic flood legends of some an-\\ntiquity; but of all the traditions we possess, by far\\nthe most important and original is the double tra-\\ndition of Babylonia and Israel. Let us begin\\nwith the Greeks.\\nThe Greek flood stories are interesting, but\\nthey have not the importance that many writers\\nUsener, Sintflutsagen, 248-251.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0399.jp2"}, "400": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nhave assigned them; first, because they are not\\nrelated by any very ancient Greek writer, and\\nsecondly because they never expanded into a\\ntrue epic. Homer and Hesiod make no men-\\ntion of them, and from this circumstance we\\nmay infer that flood legends were not current in\\ntheir day, as Hesiod in particular would have\\nbeen glad to tell such a story if he had known it.f\\nEven Herodotus (b.c. 484) makes no mention\\nof a flood. Moreover, we do not find among\\nthe Greeks any one authoritative, stereotyped\\nform of flood narrative, such as we should find\\nif the legend rested on an old national tradition.\\nDifferent writers treat the subject differently,\\nshifting the scene of the Flood and adding fea-\\ntures taken from here or there as they please.\\nThe earliest Greek author, so far as I know, to\\nallude to the Flood, is the famous Theban poet\\nPindar (born about 522 B.C.), who. in his Ninth\\nOlympian Ode describes Deucalion and Pyrrha\\ndescending from Mount Parnassus and creating\\na new race of men out of stones. He mentions\\nthis as a well-known story, and merely adds,\\nTruly men say that once a mighty water swept\\nover the dark earth, but by the craft of Zeus an\\nebb suddenly drew off the flood. X The first\\nGreek writer who related the whole story of the\\nFlood at length is ApoUodorus, the Attic gram-\\nHomer, Iliad, 11. 384, mentions destructive rains sent by-\\nZeus, but describes no flood.\\nf The story of the Flood would have fitted so perfectly with\\nHesiod s scheme of the Four Ages of the world that in this case\\nthe argumentuin e silentio may be safely applied. In Hesiod s\\nlost Catalogue of Women the line of Greek heroes seems to\\nhave been derived from Deucalion and Pyrrha. This document,\\nhowever, is hardly older than 600 B.C.\\nE, Myers* translation.\\n(362)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0400.jp2"}, "401": {"fulltext": "Greek Traditions\\nmarian (flor. circa 140 B.C.), in his Bibliotheca\\nor mythology of Greece. Earlier writers, how-\\never, allude to it.\\nAmong the Greeks the Flood legend took two\\ndistinct forms. The first and perhaps the older\\nwas connected with Ogyges,* the most ancient\\nking of Boeotia, though some say of Attica. In\\nhis reign the waters of Lake Copais rose above\\ntheir banks and inundated the whole valley of\\nBoeotia. Late writers, like Pausanias (who\\nwrote his Itinerary of Greece under Marcus\\nAurelius), assert that the waters rose up to heav-\\nen, and Dionysius Nonus (a.d. 300) adds that\\nOgyges escaped in a vessel.f Little, however, is\\ntold of this flood; apparently it was eclipsed by\\nthe more popular story of Deucalion. As it is\\nrelated only by late writers, and as no worship\\nwas accorded Ogyges in Greece, we may pre-\\nsume that it came to Greece from abroad, per-\\nhaps from Asia Minor through Phoenician set-\\ntlers.\\nBy far the more popular Greek Flood story\\nwas that of Deucalion and Pyrrha, to which we\\nfind several allusions in Plato. In The\\nLaws X Plato makes the Athenian stranger ask\\nCleinias, Do you believe that there is any truth\\n*The Scholiast on Plato s Timaeus, 22a, states expressly that\\nOgyges flood occurred first and Deucalion s afterward. Although\\nOgyges is an ancient figure in Greek mythology, descriptions of\\nthis flood, which are very meagre, are preserved only in late\\nwriters like Julius Africanus, Dionysius Nonus, Varro, and\\nEusebius. Movers derived his name from the Phoenicians\\nPreller, Buttmann, and others regard it as a reduplication of the\\nroot 0/ceavos, and regard Ogyges as the personification of the\\nocean.\\nf Pausanias, ix. 5, i.\\nX Laws, iii. 677.\\n(363)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0401.jp2"}, "402": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nin the ancient traditions What traditions\\nsays Cleinias. The traditions about the many-\\ndestructions of mankind which have been oc-\\ncasioned by deluges and disease, and in many\\nother ways, and of the preservation of a rem-\\nnant? From the way Plato speaks of many\\ndestructions and of deluges, it would not\\nseem that any one universal deluge was known\\nto him.\\nIn the Timaeus there is a very interesting\\npassage. Solon is telling an Egyptian priest\\nabout the deluge of Deucalion and Pyrrha, but\\nthe Egyptian ridicules him and tells Solon that\\nthe Greeks are but children, and know nothing\\nof the old traditions. Then he goes on to speak\\nin a most rational way about the Flood and other\\ncatastrophes, and assures Solon that no such\\ndeluge has visited Egypt for the reason that rain\\ndoes not fall there, though he admits that many\\nfloods have occurred in other parts of the world.\\nHe ends by telling the famous story of the Island\\nof Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean, which by rea-\\nson of an earthquake and flood disappeared in\\none day. This story is doubly interesting first,\\nas affording additional proof that no Flood legend\\nexisted in Egypt; and secondly, on account of\\nthe story of the destruction of Atlantis. There\\nwill always be persons who pin their faith to this\\nancient myth. It is very tempting to imagine\\nthat the terrible seismic disturbance that de-\\ntroyed this island launched a frightful tidal wave,\\nwhich, sweeping over the old world, actually\\ncaused the deluge. Unfortunately, low-lying\\nEgypt would have been the first to suffer, but\\nTimaeus, 22.\\n(364)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0402.jp2"}, "403": {"fulltext": "Flexibility of Greek Flood Legend\\naccording to the very story on which the Atlantis\\nmyth rests, Egypt did not suffer at all.\\nThe expanded form of the Deucalion Flood\\nlegend is given by Apollodorus as follows\\nZeus wished to destroy the men of the bronze age.\\nDeucalion, by the advice of his father, Prometheus, built\\na chest, placed provisions in it, and entered it with his wife,\\nPyrrha. Zeus then let great floods of rain stream down\\nfrom heaven, which overwhelmed the greater part of\\nGreece, to such an extent, indeed, that all men were de-\\nstroyed except a few who had taken refuge on the nearest\\nhigh mountains. At that time it also happened that the\\nmountains in eastern Thessaly split, and the whole land\\nas far as the Isthmus became a sea. But Deucalion was\\ndriven in his chest through the sea for nine days and nights,\\nuntil he landed on Parnassus; and there, when the rain\\nceased, he disembarked and offered sacrifice to Zeus, who\\nhad guided his voyage. Then Zeus sent Hermes to him\\nand incited him to express a wish. He supplicated off-\\nspring. According to the command of Zeus, he took up\\nstones and threw them over his head. And the stones\\nthrown by Deucalion became men, and those (thrown) by\\nPyrrha became women. From this came the expression\\nlaoi, for people or nations, because they sprang from stones\\n(laoi)^\\nOvid s t elaborate description of the great del-\\nuge, which impHes an eadier poetic model, and\\nHorace s i sarcastic allusion to it, are too famiHar\\nto be recounted.\\nWhat astonishes us most in the Greek Flood\\nlegend is its flexibility. Not only are three dis-\\ntinct deluges mentioned, but even in the most\\npopular story of Deucalion many different\\ncauses of the flood are given. According to\\nApollodorus and others, the flood was sent to\\npunish the impiety of the men of the bronze age.\\nApollodorus i. 7, 2.\\nt Ovid s Metam. i. 288, fif.\\nt Horace s Odes, 8, 2-5.\\n\u00c2\u00a71. The flood of Ogyges. 2. Of Deucalion. 3. OfDardanos.\\n.1\\n(365)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0403.jp2"}, "404": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nAccording to Ovid and others, men sprung from\\ngiants blood, or the impiety of Lycaon, or the\\nTitans attack on Dionysos, had awakened the\\nwrath of Zeus. The scene of the catastrophe\\nand the landing place of Deucalion and Pyrrha\\nare also constantly shifted. Locris, Argos,\\nSicily, Megara, Thessaly, Dodona, Cos, Rhodes,\\nand Crete,* all claim the honor of providing asy-\\nlum for the survivors and of being the birthplace\\nof the new humanity. In one respect this is very\\nnatural. Deucalion was regarded as the ancestor\\nof the Greek people, and in a country containing\\nso many sharp political divisions, we are not sur-\\nprised that each locaHty tried to prove the legit-\\nimacy of its birthright by tracing its descent from\\nDeucalion. This in itself indicates that the Flood\\nstory was not without influence in Greece, but\\nthe very fluidity of the tradition proves that it\\npossessed no early or authoritative poetic form.\\nThe fact that the Flood story was unknown to\\nHomer and Hesiod makes us almost certain that\\nit was not a primitive Greek tradition. We must\\ntherefore assume that it was elaborated on Greek\\nsoil between the period of the Hesiodic poems\\nand 600 B.C., or else we must believe that in the\\ncourse of these centuries the Flood tradition\\ncame to Greece from some people that pos-\\nsessed it. Usener,t whose recent investigation\\nof the problem is by far the best we possess, ar-\\ngues for the native origin of both the Greek and\\nthe Hindu Flood legend, but his arguments do\\nnot seem to me conclusive. In the earliest detailed\\nGreek Flood story, that of Apollodorus, the men-\\nSee Flood table, Appendix II.\\nf Die Sintflutsagen, Bonn, 1899.\\n(366)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0404.jp2"}, "405": {"fulltext": "Origin of Greek Legend\\ntion of a chest seems to point directly to\\nGenesis. Several other features of our Flood,\\nhowever, such as the collection of the animals,\\nthe sending of the birds, etc., are entirely absent,\\nand it is right to add that the later Greek Flood\\nlegends, such as Ovid s and the De Dea Syra\\nascribed to Lucian, are much more Semitic than\\nthe descriptions of earlier writers. Lucian intro-\\nduces new embellishments, plainly of Eastern ori-\\ngin, such as the breaking up of the great deep\\nand the preservation of certain animals. Plu-\\ntarch, I believe, first mentions the episode of the\\nbirds. He informs us that a dove released by\\nDeucalion from his chest was a sign to him of\\nthe duration of the storm when she returned to\\nhim for protection, and of the appearance of fair\\nweather when she flew away. We happen to\\nknow through Charon of Lampsacus that the\\ndove which played so great a part in Greek myth-\\nology as the sacred bird of Aphrodite, was intro-\\nduced into Greece as late as 492 B.C. This cir-\\ncumstance shows us how quickly foreign myths\\nwere naturalized on Greek soil, but it is not a lit-\\ntle curious that the dove, the bird of Astarte,j\\nshould come to Greece again from the East, this\\ntime in Noah s ark.f I shall have something\\nfurther to say of the origin of the Greek Flood\\nmyth in connection with the origin of the Flood\\ntradition in general. Here I will simply state\\nthat after examining Usener s skilful argument I\\nam still of the opinion that the Greek Flood\\nlegend is part of the great cycle of the Babylonian\\ntradition.\\nPlutarch, De Soil. Anim. xiii. p. 968 f Quoted by Usener.\\nf See Usener, op. cit. p. 254.\\n(367)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0405.jp2"}, "406": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nWe pass now to India. Here we find one\\nshort, isolated tradition of the Flood, preserved\\nin three forms which agree with one another in\\nessential features. The oldest and simplest form\\nof this tradition is found in the Satapatha Brah-\\nmana; another more elaborate version is found\\nin the long epic poem, Mahabharata,t and in a\\nstill later and a more fantastic form in the poem\\ncalled Bhagavata Purana.J The story in the\\nSatapatha Brahmana runs as follows\\nIn the morning they brought to Manu water, just as now\\nalso they [are wont to] bring [water] for washing the\\nhands. When he was washing himself, a fish came into his\\nhands.\\nIt spake to him the word, Rear me, I will save thee.\\nWherefrom wilt thou save me? A flood will carry\\naway all these creatures. From that I will save thee.\\nHow am I to rear thee?\\nIt said, As long as we are small there is great destruc-\\ntion for us: fish devours fish. Thou wilt first keep me in a\\njar. When I outgrow that, thou wilt dig a pit, and keep\\nme in it. When I outgrow that, thou wilt take me down\\nto the sea, for then I shall be beyond destruction.\\nIt soon became a ghasha [large fish]. Thereupon it\\nsaid, In such and such a year the flood will come. Thou\\nshalt then attend to me [i.e., to my advice] by preparing\\na ship, and when the flood has risen thou shalt enter into\\nthe ship and I will save thee from it.\\nAfter he had reared it in this way, he took it down to the\\nsea. And in the same year which the fish had indicated to\\nhim he attended [to the advice of the fish] by preparing a\\nship, and when the flood had risen he entered into the ship.\\nThe fish then swam up to him, and to its horn he tied the\\nrope of the ship, and by that means he passed swiftly up\\nto yonder northern mountain.\\nIt then said, I have saved thee. Fasten the ship to\\na tree, but let not the waters cut thee off whilst thou art on\\nthe mountain. As the water subsides thou mayest gradu-\\nNot later than 500 B.C., and probably much older,\\nfi. 12746-12804 date of poem from 500 B.C. to 500 A.D.,\\nHopkins.\\nifBurnouf s ed., ii. 177,191. Dateof poem from 500-1500 A.D.\\n(368)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0406.jp2"}, "407": {"fulltext": "Hindu Flood Legend\\nally descend. Accordingly he gradually descended, and\\nhence that slope of the northern mountain is called Manu s\\nDescent. The flood then swept away all these creatures\\nand Manu alone remained here.*\\nAfter the flood was ended, Manu offered sac-\\nrifice. Out of the sacrifice came a young woman,\\nfrom whom the present race issued.\\nIn this earHest version, which is marked by so-\\nbriety, the name of the fish god is not mentioned.\\nThe Mahabharata calls him Brahma, and in the\\nPurana the fish becomes one of the ten incarna-\\ntions of Vishnu. In the Mahabharata, Brahma\\ntells Manu to take all kinds of seed with him, and\\nin the Purana, Vishnu says to Satyvsata,t In\\nseven days the three worlds will be submerged by\\nan ocean of destruction. These touches appear\\nto be taken directly from the Babylonian tradi-\\ntion.\\nAs long ago as the keen-sighted Eugene Bur-\\nnouf it was suspected that this Hindu story was\\nof Semitic origin. Burnouf showed, first, that this\\nlegend does not occur in the Vedas; secondly,\\nthat it is opposed to the periodic destructions of\\nthe world, which is a fundamental dogma of\\nHindu beHef and thirdly, that there is no other\\nmention in Hindu mythology of the worship of a\\nfish. On the other hand, in the Babylonian pan-\\ntheon the fish god is a very familiar figure. In\\nparticular we remember that in Berosus, Oannes,\\nwho gave warning of the coming flood, is de-\\nscribed as combining the forms of fish and man.\u00c2\u00a7\\nSatapatha Brahmana, i. 8, i, i-6.\\nf King of the Daras, or fishermen, substituted in this version\\nfor Manu.\\nif Pref. of third vol. of his ed., Vishnu Purana. Murray,\\n1840. Trubner, 1864.\\n\u00c2\u00a7Syncenus Chron. in Euseb., Cory s Fragm., 30-31.\\n24\\n(369)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0407.jp2"}, "408": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nIn the epic poem of Izdubar it is Ea, god of the\\ndeep, who warns Sit-napistim that the flood is\\ncoming, and advises him to make a ship to save\\nhimself and the seed of life.\\nIt may therefore be regarded as probable that\\nthe Hindu Flood story was borrowed directly or\\nindirectly from Babylonia. In spite of the objec-\\ntions of Weber,^ Roth,t and Max Muller,^ this\\nview has steadily gained ground, and, as Ihering\\njustly remarks, All the evidence that I have pro-\\nduced respecting the influence of the Babylo-\\nnians upon the Indians may perhaps contribute\\nto secure a more favorable reception of his\\n(Burnouf s) views.\\nDr. Hopkins, in his learned and cautious Re-\\nligions of India, T[ alludes to the supposition\\nthat the Hindu story of the Flood was derived\\nfrom Babylonia as an unnecessary though ad-\\nmissible hypothesis, as the tale is old enough to\\nwarrant the belief in its indigenous origin. In\\nsaying this Dr. Hopkins assumes that a passage\\nin the Atharva Veda refers to the story of\\nManu s Flood, which would make the Hindu tra-\\ndition somewhat older than we have supposed.\\nThis passage, however, does not mention either\\nManu or the Flood. It speaks of a golden ship\\nwith golden tackle, which glided down on the\\npeak of the Himavant, and Bloomfield, the\\nIndische Studien, i. 161-232.\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2f Milnchner Gelehrte Anz., 1849, Pt- 26 f,, 1850, pt. 72.\\nX Essays, i. 141.\\nWith most investigators I regard this narrative as a\\nSemitic loan. Oldenburg, Relig. des Vedas, 276, An. 3.\\nII Evol. of Aryan, 184.\\nGinn, 1895, p. 160.\\nxix. 39, 7, 8.\\n(370)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0408.jp2"}, "409": {"fulltext": "Persian Flood Legend\\ntranslator,* admits that the passage may have\\nnothing to do with the Flood, although he finds\\nthe suggestion attractive. More to the point is\\nthe passage from the Kathaka cited by A.\\nWeber, t which reads, The waters wiped out\\nthis [existing world], Manu alone remained.\\nHere the Flood seems to be alluded to in unmis-\\ntakable terms.\\nIt only remains for us to cast a glance at the\\nliterature of Persia. There are, to my knowl-\\nedge, but two passages in the sacred writings of\\nthe Zoroastrians which can be construed into al-\\nlusions to a flood, and neither of them is conclu-\\nsive. You may remember the passage in the\\nZend Avesta in which Ahura Mazda warns Yima,\\nthe good shepherd, of a series of frightful winters\\nwhich are about to devastate the earth. He\\ntherefore commands Yima to make a Vara, an\\nunderground abode, and to collect there the seed\\nof all good animals and birds for safe keeping.\\nO fair Yima, upon the material world the evil\\nwinters are about to fall that shall bring the fierce deadly\\nfrost; upon the material world the evil winters are about to\\nfall that shall make snow flakes even an ardvi [comment,\\nfourteen fingers] deep on the highest tops of the moun-\\ntains.\\nThen follows a description of the enclosure,\\nwhich I omit.\\nThither shalt thou bring the seeds of every kind of tree\\nthither shalt thou bring the seeds of every kind of\\nfruit. All these seeds shalt thou bring, two of every kind\\nto be kept inexhaustible there. t\\nSacred Books of the East, xlii. pp. 6, 679.\\nf Weber in Kuhn s und Schleicher s Beitragen, 4, 288, and\\nin Streifen, i. 11, Anm. 3.\\nX Vendidad, Fargard ii.\\n(371:", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0409.jp2"}, "410": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThe curious feature of this narrative, which\\nfew writers have noticed, is that it does not de-\\nscribe a catastrophe which has taken place, but\\ncontains a warning of a visitation yet to come.\\nAt most we have here a general destruction,\\nbut no flood. The command to preserve seed re-\\nminds us a little of the Babylonian story, the men-\\ntion of two of each species is in the style of the\\nPriestly Writer but for the rest, the narrative is\\nvery different from either Genesis or the Baby-\\nlonian Flood legend. Yima s underground\\nhouse preserves not only Yima and his family\\nand the animals, but the plants as well, and the\\nspecimens of all the human race. The utmost\\nthat can be said is that this may be a far-off echo\\nof the Babylonian or the BibHcal Flood story\\nadapted to the severe climate of Persia; or, if not\\nthis, then it is nothing but a reminiscence of ex-\\nceptionally cold winters during which human be-\\nings kept themselves alive by burrowing in the\\nearth.\\nThe second passage, found in the late book\\ncalled the Bundahesh, does indeed describe a\\nflood in which rain fell for ten days, every drop\\nas big as a bowl, until the waters stood the\\nheight of a man over the whole earth. The ob-\\nject of this flood, however, is to destroy the de-\\nmons and malevolent spirits created by Angro\\nMainyu. There is no mention of men in this\\nstory, and neither of these judgments seems to\\nhave been provoked by human sin. We there-\\nfore fail to find a true Flood tradition in Persia.\\nWe may sum up the result of our investigation\\nthus far as follows The most genuinely ancient\\n*Chap. vii.\\n(372)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0410.jp2"}, "411": {"fulltext": "Original Flood Tradition\\nand original tradition of a universal deluge\\nknown to the old world appears to be the tradi-\\ntion of which our story in Genesis forms part,\\nand which finds its earliest and most original ex-\\npression in Babylonia. The Egyptians and\\nArabs have no Flood legends. The Hindus have\\none tradition which probably was borrowed from\\nBabylonia. The Persian story of the terrible\\nwinters can hardly be regarded as a Flood legend,\\nand in Greece the late date and the comparative\\nunimportance of the Flood tradition indicate that\\nit was not of native origin, but that it came to\\nGreece through some Semitic source.\\n(373)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0411.jp2"}, "412": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Eighteen:\\nThe Flood Traditions of Babylon\\nIN our last chapter we discussed the traditions\\nof the Flood preserved by several great civi-\\nhzed nations of antiquity. We found that the\\nEgyptians had no native Flood legend. The Per-\\nsian legend at most preserved an echo of a gen-\\neral destruction which was to be a series of severe\\nwinters, not a flood of waters. The Greeks pos-\\nsessed two principal Flood stories, neither of\\nwhich is related by any Greek writer before Pin-\\ndar. They do not appear, therefore, to have\\nformed part of a primitive Greek tradition. The\\nHindus possessed one peculiar isolated Flood\\ntradition in three forms, the oldest and simplest\\nversion of which is contained in the Satapatha\\nBrahmana, which may date from 900 B.C. The\\nmajority of scholars believe that this tradition\\nhad a Babylonian origin. The result of our\\ninvestigation seemed to lead to the conclusion\\nthat the Semitic tradition represented by the\\nBabylonian and the Hebrew Flood narratives\\nis not only the oldest tradition, but the most\\noriginal, and it is possible that all the Flood tradi-\\ntions of the ancient world arose from this source,\\nmingled with native myths and recollections of\\nlocal deluges occurring in different places at dif-\\nferent times. This is a point, however, on which\\n(374)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0412.jp2"}, "413": {"fulltext": "Discovery of Cuneiform Accounts\\nI do not insist. I turn now to the Flood tradition\\nof Babylonia. For a long time we have possessed\\nsome knowledge of the Babylonian Flood legend,\\nthrough Berosus, a Babylonian priest, who wrote\\nin Greek. But of late years our knowledge has\\nbeen materially increased by the cuneiform tab-\\nlets of the poem of Izdubar. This work was dis-\\ncovered by George Smith in Nineveh, and was\\ntranslated by Mr. Smith and given to the world\\nin 1872.* Mr. Smith s copies were defective and\\nhis translation was far from perfect, and yet his\\ndiscovery marks an epoch in the study of the\\nBible. Since then other copies of the Izdubar\\nepic have been found, unfortunately also imper-\\nfect and mutilated. Professor Paul Haupt, of\\nJohns Hopkins University, has carefully col-\\nlected all, or almost all,t the known fragments\\nof this ancient poem, which he has pubhshed in\\ntwo volumes. J Dr. Haupt s text is accepted by\\nall scholars as authoritative, and on it all recent\\ntranslations are based. Among the best trans-\\nlations are Jeremias Jensen s,! and Zimmern s\\nin Gunkel s fascinating work.l^ Dr. Jastrow has\\nalso made an original translation of parts of this\\npoem for his Religions of Babylonia. In what\\nfollows I shall refer to these four translations.\\nLet us first consider the tradition preserved by\\nBerosus. Berosus was a priest of the god Bel in\\nBabylon during and after the lifetime of Alex-\\nAt a meeting of the Society for Biblical Archaeol., Dec. 3,\\n1872.\\nf See Vorrede, Jeremias Izdubar-Nimrod.\\ni Das Babylonische Nimrodepos, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1884,1891.\\nIzdubar-Nimrod, Teubner, Leipz,, 1891.\\nI Kosmol. der Babylonier, Strasburg, i8go, pp. 367-446.\\nSchopfung und Chaos, pp. 423-428, Gottingen, 1895.\\n(375)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0413.jp2"}, "414": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nander the Great. He translated a sketch of the\\nhistory of Babylonia and Chaldea, in three vol-\\numes, which he dedicated to Antiochus Sotor\\n(280-270 B.C.). The materials of this history he\\nprofessed to derive from the ancient cuneiform\\nchronicles preserved in the temple of Bel in\\nwhich he ministered,* and there is no good rea-\\nson to doubt the truth of his assertion and the\\nauthenticity of his history.f Most unfortunately\\nby far the greater part of this priceless work has\\nperished. What has come down to us is in the\\nform of fragments preserved principally by late\\nGreek writers, Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus\\nand Apollodorus, whose writings reach us\\nthrough Josephus, Eusebius and Syncellus. So\\nit is apparent that the views put forth by Berosus\\ncome to us in a very roundabout manner. In\\nplaces his statements have been so garbled as to\\nseem absurd, and yet, fragmentary as his work\\nis, it is of great importance. Besides the frag-\\nments we have mentioned, another short narra-\\ntive bearing on the Flood has been preserved by\\nJosephus and Eusebius, from the pen of Nicolaus\\nof Damascus, who hved during the reign of\\nAugustus.^\\nNow let us turn to Berosus account of the del-\\nuge as it is preserved in the various works I have\\n*See statement of Alex. Polyh. in Cory, p. 21.\\nf See Budde s Urgeschichte, p. 474 flf.\\nif The fragments of Berosus have been frequently collected by\\nW. Richter, Leipzig, 1825 by Miiller, in his Fragment. Hist.\\nGrsec, 2 vols., Paris, 1848 by Cory, in his well-known An-\\ncient Fragments, London, 1832. Among the many attempts to\\nestablish the dates of Berosus, perhaps the most exhaustive is that\\nof F. Lenormant, in his Essai de Commentaire de Fragments\\nCosmogoniques de Berose, Paris, 1871. The best text of Be-\\nrosus is found in Schoene s ed. of Eusebius, with Gutschmid s\\ncomments, Eusebi Chron., libri duo, ed. Schoene.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0414.jp2"}, "415": {"fulltext": "The Account of Berosus\\nmentioned. In the second book of his history\\nBerosus gave the names of the ten mythical kings\\nwho reigned from the beginning, the last of\\nwhom is Xisuthros, the Babylonian Noah, who\\nwas saved from the deluge. Xisuthros, there-\\nfore, may be assumed to be identical with Sit-\\nnapistim, of whom the poem of Izdubar speaks.\\nHis name is believed to be a corruption of\\nKhasis-adra, an inversion of the epithet bestowed\\nupon Sit-napistim; it means very pious, or\\nvery clever.\\nThe deity Kronos [i.e., Ea] appeared to him [Xisuthros]\\nin a vision,f and warned him that upon the fifteenth day\\nof the month Daesius there would be a flood, by which\\nmankind would be destroyed.\\nDaesius is the eighth month of the Grseco-\\nSyrian year. As that year began in the autumn,\\nDaesius would correspond roughly with June,\\nand the fifteenth of Daesius would fall not far\\nfrom the first of July, thus causing the Flood to\\noccur at the very time when rivers are the lowest.\\nLenormant, therefore, conjectures that Berosus\\nmerely wrote the fifteenth day of the eighth\\nmonth, rendering into Greek the name of the\\nAssyrian month Arahshamna, and Alexander,\\nforgetting that the Babylonian year began in the\\nspring, substituted the name of the eighth month\\nwith which he was acquainted, thus changing the\\nbeginning of the Flood from November to the\\nlatter part of June.$ I shall show, later, however,\\nJastrow, Religion of Baby., p. 505, note 3. Doubted by\\nsome.\\nf We find here the oft-recurring intercourse between gods and\\nmen by dreams, of which the poem of Izdubar gives us so many\\nexamples.\\nX Beginnings of Hist., 413.\\n(377)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0415.jp2"}, "416": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthat Berosus may have had a reason for stating\\nthat the Flood occurred at a time of year when\\nit could not have been caused by the overflow of\\nthe rivers. We are not told how long before the\\nFlood the warning was given.\\nHe [Kronos, or Ea] therefore enjoined him [Xisuthros]\\nto write a history of the beginning, middle, and end of all\\nthings, and to bury it in the city of the sun at Sippara.*\\nWe see from this that the Babylonians thought\\nof the Flood as occurring comparatively late, at\\nleast after the discovery of writing and history,\\nand after the founding of cities. I have called\\nattention before to the inability of the Babylo-\\nnians to go behind their own civilization, which is\\none proof of its great antiquity.\\nAnd to build a vessel, to take into it his friends and\\nrelatives, and to convey on board everything necessary to\\nsustain life, together with all the different animals, both\\nbirds and quadrupeds, and to trust himself fearlessly to the\\ndeep.\\nAlthough sin is not specifically mentioned as\\nthe cause of the deluge, yet, from the allusion at\\nthe end of the poem to the voice of the departed\\nXisuthros exhorting his friends to show respect\\nto the gods, it would appear that the Flood was\\nsent to punish men for their impiety. In the\\ncuneiform account, this is brought out more\\nplainly. The moral and religious motive of the\\nFlood, therefore, is by no means lacking.f Xisu-\\nA little above Babylon, on the left bank of the Euphrates, a\\nvery old city. The cuneiform account speaks of Surippak, whose\\nsite is unknown.\\nf See Lenormant, Essai de Comment., 259, and Maspero,\\nDawn of Civilization, 566, note 2.\\n(378)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0416.jp2"}, "417": {"fulltext": "XisuTHROs Sends Out Birds\\nthros vessel is conceived in the form of a ship\\nwith sails, as we should expect among a sea-far-\\ning people, not, as in our account, in the form of\\na chest.\\nHaving asked the deity whither he was to sail, he was\\nanswered, To the gods upon which he offered a prayer\\nfor the good of mankind.\\nA surprisingly beautiful touch. This Noah\\nforgot to do.\\nHe then obeyed the divine command, and built a vessel\\nfive stadia in length and two in breadth.* Into this he put\\neverything which he had prepared; and last of all conveyed\\ninto it his wife, his children, and his friends.\\nApparently a serious break occurs here, as the\\ncoming on of the Flood is lost. The narrative\\ncontinues\\nAfter the flood had been upon the earth, and was in time\\nabated, Xisuthros sent out birds from the vessel, which, not\\nfinding any food, nor any place whereupon they might rest\\ntheir feet, returned to him again. After an interval of some\\ndays, he sent them forth a second time, and they now re-\\nturned with their feet tinged with mud. He made trial a\\nthird time with these birds, but they returned to him no\\nmore; from which he judged that the surface of the earth\\nhad appeared above the waters. He therefore made an\\nopening in the vessel, and upon looking out saw that it\\nwas stranded upon the top of some mountain, upon which\\nhe immediately quitted it with his wife, his daughter, and\\nthe pilot.\\nThe daughter and the pilot are entirely new\\nThe Armenian version of Eusebius says fifteen stadia in\\nlength. If Lenormant is right in asserting that the Babylonian\\nstadion, amtnat gagar^ contains 360 cubits, the vessel would have\\nbeen 1,800 cubits long. Estimating the smaller Babylonian cubit\\nroughly at 20 inches, we should have a vessel 3,000 feet long and\\n1,200 feet broad.\\n(379)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0417.jp2"}, "418": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nfigures. The pilot shows conclusively that Xisu-\\nthros vessel did not merely float upon the waters,\\nbut was navigated.\\nXisuthros then paid his adoration to the earth, and\\nhaving constructed an altar, offered sacrifices to the gods,\\nand with those who had come out of the vessel with him,\\ndisappeared.\\nThey who remained within, finding that their companions\\ndid not return, quitted the vessel, with many lamentations,\\nand called continually on the name of Xisuthros. Him\\nthey saw no more, but they could distinguish his voice in\\nthe air, and hear him admonish them to pay due regard to\\nreligion; and likewise he informed them that it was on\\naccount of his piety that he was translated to live with the\\ngods, and that his wife and daughter and the pilot had\\nobtained the same honor. To this it was added that they\\nshould return to Babylonia, and as it was ordained, search\\nfor the writings at Sippara, which they were to make\\nknown to all mankind; moreover, that the place where they\\nthen were was the land of Armenia. The rest, having\\nheard these words, offered sacrifices to the gods, and tak-\\ning a circuit, journeyed toward Babylonia.\\nThere is much in this story which reminds us\\nof our narrative, along with much that is for-\\neign. The dry, colorless style bears some resem-\\nblance to that of the Priestly Writer, and with\\nreason, for Berosus also was a priest, and had the\\nstyle which distinguishes priestly annalists in all\\nages and countries. His narrative is almost mon-\\notheistic, in striking contrast to the crude poly-\\ntheism of Izdubar, but we must remember that\\nit reaches us through the hands of Church\\nhistorians, who doubtless omitted its more ob-\\njectionable features. The piety of Xisuthros, his\\nwarning by Ea, the building of the ark with its\\nexact dimensions, are all familiar enough. The\\nsending out of the birds is even more conclusive.\\nThat is one of those little touches which prove\\n(380)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0418.jp2"}, "419": {"fulltext": "Points of Difference\\nthat we are dealing with a different form of the\\nsame tradition. The tingeing of the birds feet\\nwith mud is an original feature preserved in no\\nother tradition. The landing on a mountain in\\nArmenia, the erection of an altar, and the offer-\\ning of sacrifice, also perfectly agree with our\\naccount.\\nThe chief points of difference are the omis-\\nsion of three sons, who were not needed by\\nBerosus, as Xisuthros was accompanied by\\nfriends, and the introduction of a daughter and\\nthe pilot, with all that the latter implies. The\\nmost striking contrast with Genesis is the final\\nfate of Xisuthros, which is preserved in both\\nforms of the Babylonian tradition. The Baby-\\nlonian hero does not die at all. In company with\\nhis wife and his pilot he escapes death by trans-\\nlation. In Berosus his final fate is left uncertain.\\nHe simply disappears. The other occupants of\\nthe ark see him no more, and only hear his voice\\nfor a short time in the air. In Izdubar, however,\\nSit-napistim is translated to the Island of the\\nBlessed; this forms an important episode of the\\npoem, but the circumstance that Berosus repre-\\nsents the pilot as translated with him is an indica-\\ntion that Berosus narrative originally ended in\\nthe same way. This bold incident seems to be\\nlacking in the Bible. Noah lives for three hun-\\ndred and fifty years after the Flood, and yields to\\ndeath at last. But a similar story is told of an\\nearlier patriarch. Enoch did not die, he was\\ntranslated, Hke Xisuthros, without tasting death,\\nand for the same reason he was a righteous man.\\nAnd Enoch walked with God, and he was not,\\nIn Berosus, also his daughter.\\n(381)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0419.jp2"}, "420": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nfor God took him. In one Greek version of\\nthe Flood DeucaHon is said to have been trans-\\nlated to heaven, where he became the sign of\\nAquarius. t It is not impossible that the same\\nfate was at one time ascribed to Noah. The name\\nof Berosus hero, Xisuthros, as Jastrow points\\nout, is believed to be a corruption of Khasis-adra,\\nwhich means exceedingly pious. Now Noah is\\ndescribed in almost precisely the same terms. In\\nthe ninth verse of the sixth chapter of Genesis\\nwe read, Noah was a man sadditt-tamtn [i. e.,\\nperfectly just, or very pious among his\\ncontemporaries. Even more significant are the\\nfollowing words, Noah walked with God. We\\nturn back to the story of Enoch, who was trans-\\nlated like Xisuthros, and we read, Enoch\\nwalked with God, and he disappeared, for God\\nhad taken him away (Gen. v. 24). To walk\\nwith God in olden times meant something more\\nthan a pious, blameless life. It implied such per-\\nsonal association with the Deity as Adam en-\\njoyed in Paradise. Hence it is by no means im-\\npossible that in the older forms of the Hebrew\\ntradition Noah was translated like Xisuthros and\\nEnoch. Why this distinction was afterward\\ntransferred from Noah to Enoch, of whom we\\nknow so little, may yet be discovered.\\nThe story concludes thus\\nThe vessel, being thus stranded in Armenia, some part\\nof it yet remains in theCorcyrsean| mountains of Armenia;\\nand the people scrape ofif the bitumen with which it was\\noutwardly coated, and make use of it by way of an alexi-\\nGen. V. 24.\\nf Ampel. lib. Memor. 2.\\nf The Armenian version has Corduarum montibus i.e.,\\nKurdish mountains.\\n(382)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0420.jp2"}, "421": {"fulltext": "Ark in Armenia\\npharmic and an amulet. And when they returned to Baby-\\nlon, and had found the writings at Sippara, they built cities\\nand erected temples, and Babylon was thus inhabited again.\\nBerosus, if this passage comes directly from\\nhis pen, also regarded Armenia as the landing\\nplace after the Flood. He alludes to an old pop-\\nular belief of his time when he says that parts of\\nthe ark were visible in the Kurdish mountains.\\nThis statement is important, as it supports the\\nstatement of Genesis that the ark grounded on a\\nmountain of Ararat. It also indicates that, ac-\\ncording to the tradition used by Berosus, the\\nFlood arose in the south and passed to the north\\nand west against the current of the rivers Tigris\\nand Euphrates. On the other hand, no argu-\\nment can be based on this passage for Armenia\\nas the original home of the Babylonian and He-\\nbrew peoples. The legend does not place the\\nFlood in the period of migrations, but much\\nlater, in an age of cities, arts and literature. Al-\\nthough the occupants of the ship are driven to\\nArmenia they do not remain there, but return at\\nonce to Babylonia. Berosus tells us that the\\nFlood was sent expressly for the destruction of\\nmankind, and though in the fragments we pos-\\nsess we are not told that it was a universal deluge,\\nyet from the fact that the high mountains of\\nKurdistan are represented as covered, the Flood\\nwas evidently conceived much as in Genesis.\\nAbydenus, in Syncellus,* relates the story in\\nabout the same language, though more briefly.\\nThere is one other point to which I want to\\ncall attention. Shortly before the Flood narra-\\ntive, Berosus tells a singular story of seven fish-\\nCory s Fragments, 32, 33.\\n(383)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0421.jp2"}, "422": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmen, or fish-gods, who arose from the Sea of\\nBabylon, i. e., the Persian Gulf, and who taught\\nthe people language and writing, agriculture\\nand the building of towns and temples. And\\nwhat the first of these deities laid down the rest\\nexplained in detail* This tradition, as Dunckerf\\nconjectures, can hardly have any other meaning\\nthan that culture, civilization and the art of writ-\\ning came to the Chaldeans from the south, from\\nthe region of the Persian Gulf. The sevenfold\\nrevelation may mean seven sacred books, of\\nwhich the later explain the first. We have no-\\nticed that Berosus, in his Flood story, attaches\\ngreat importance to certain sacred writings\\nwhich existed before the Flood, and which Xisu-\\nthros was commanded to conceal in Sippara, and\\nwhich those who were saved from the Flood were\\ncommanded to recover. Pliny J also tells us that\\nthe sacred writings of the Chaldeans were kept\\nat Sippara.\\nI turn now from the account of Berosus to the\\ncuneiform account contained in the poem of Iz-\\ndubar. Every one sensitive to the power of\\nwords will feel the difference at once. Berosus\\nnarrative is what it purports to be, a prosaic\\nchronicle preserved by priests. It is a dry story\\nfrom which all picturesque and emotional ele-\\nments have been eliminated. In this respect\\nit reminds us of our Priestly Writer s docu-\\nThis is not unlike the ancient Chinese legend of the origin of\\nthe Yi-King, in which it is said that a dragon-horse rose from the\\nYellow River bearing on his back the signs of the most ancient\\nChinese script. See, Chantepie de la Saussaye, Religions-Ge-\\nschichte, I. 51,\\nf GeschichtedesAlterthums, Duncker, 5te Aufl., i. 236, 237.\\ni Pliny, Nat. Hist., 6, 30.\\n(384)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0422.jp2"}, "423": {"fulltext": "The Two Babylonian Traditions\\nment, just as the cuneiform poem reminds us\\nstrikingly of the Jehovist s narrative. It is\\ntempting to suppose that our two writers had\\nthese two forms of the Babylonian tradition\\nbefore them, and that while the Priestly Writer\\npreferred the sober history afterward trans-\\nlated by the priest Berosus, the Jehovist at-\\ntached himself to the more congenial, poetic\\nnarrative of Izdubar. The attempt to es-\\ntablish this point has been made by the Dutch-\\nman Kosters,* and according to Dillmann f it\\nhas utterly failed. I therefore resign that idea,\\ncalling attention to the fact that our inability to\\nattach either of our narratives directly to either\\nof the Babylonian narratives is another argu-\\nment against supposing that our tradition was\\nborrowed directly from Babylon at a late period.\\nIt is, however, interesting to note that the Baby-\\nlonians had two distinct Flood traditions, and that\\nthe Jehovist at all events followed the cuneiform\\naccount much more closely than did the Priestly\\nWriter, although both writers must have been\\nacquainted with the tradition embodied in Izdu-\\nbar. It is difficult to say which of the two Baby-\\nlonian accounts represents the older form of the\\ntradition, except that on general principles\\npoetry is older than prose. But on the other\\nhand, no one would hesitate to affirm that in its\\npresent form the Flood story of Izdubar is de-\\ncidedly the older, as it is genuine epic poetry\\nand occurs in a poem which is believed to date\\nfrom at least 2000 B.c.-t It is true, the episode\\nTheologisch Tijdeschrift, Leyden, xix. 335 ff.\\nf Gen., i. 263.\\niBoscawen, The Bible and the Monuments, p. 73.\\n25 (385)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0423.jp2"}, "424": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nof the deluge is plainly interpolated into the\\npoem of Izdubar, but there is no reason to sup-\\npose it to be later than other portions of that\\nancient patchwork of verse. On the contrary,\\nthe epic wealth of diction and fantasy which dis-\\ntinguishes the Flood narrative may well point to\\nan earlier date of composition.* The Flood story\\nforms nearly three-quarters of the eleventh tablet\\nof the epic. You will recaU the situation. Izdu-\\nbar, in search of the Tree of Life, has reached at\\nlast the Island of the Blessed. He is conversing\\nwith Sit-napistim,t who holds out to him no hope\\nof attaining the eternal youth he desires. Then\\nIzdubar asks Sit-napistim how he managed to\\nescape the mortal fate which is common to all\\nmen, and in reply Sit-napistim tells Izdubar the\\nstory of his marvellous deliverance and transla-\\ntion.\\nIzdubar, I will tell you the secret, and will confide to you\\nthe decision of the gods. The city Surippak X which you\\nknow, on the banks of the Euphrates, the same city was\\n[already] old\u00c2\u00a7 when the gods were minded to send a flood\\nupon it the great gods.\\nPrimarily, then, the Flood was intended to ac-\\ncount for the destruction of this one city, a fact\\ncarefully to be borne in mind.\\n[They took counsel?] their father, Anu: their judge, the\\nhero, Bel; their guide Ninib; their chief, En-nugi.\\nSee Jeremias Izdubar-Nimrod, p. 13.\\nf Sit-napistim is interpreted the escaped, the rescued. Jen-\\nsen, Cosmol., 384, 385.\\nJ Unknown, Jastrow, 496. Jensen tries to identify it with\\nBerosus Larancha, Kos der Bab., 387; Frd. Delitzsch, with\\nLarak, Paradies, 224.\\nJastrow, corrupt Zimmern s conjecture.\\nII Or Nin-girsu, warrior of Bel, a solar deity.\\n(386)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0424.jp2"}, "425": {"fulltext": "Ea s Warning\\nThe lord of wisdom, Ea, spoke with them.* He told their\\nresolution to the fields,\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Fields! fields! hut! hut!t Fields,\\ngive heed! Hut, take warning!\\nIt is plain that Ea, the god of humanity, does\\nnot share the desire of the other gods to destroy\\nthe human race. He therefore takes this round-\\nabout way of warning the people of what is com-\\ning by informing the houses and fields, so that in\\nthe end he may be able to tell the gods that he has\\nnot betrayed their counsel. He also sends the\\nfollowing vision to Sit-napistim\\nMan of Surippak, son of Kidini-Marduk, t make a\\nhouse, build a ship, save all that you can find of the seed\\nof life. Let your possessions go, save life, bring seed of\\nlife of all kinds into the ship. The dimensions of the ship\\nyou build shall be measured. Its breadth shall correspond\\nwith its height. Then let it go down from its moorings\\ninto the deep.\\nI paid attention, and said to Ea, my lord: My\\nlord, what you have commanded I will hold in honor and\\ncarry out [but what] shall I answer to the town, the people,\\nand the elders?\\nSit-napistim behaves with great discretion the\\npeople will certainly inquire the cause of his build-\\ning this strange vessel and collecting the seeds of\\nliving beings. It will be observed that Ea has\\nnot yet told him the nature of the coming calam-\\nity. Ea, however, now bids him announce to the\\npeople in veiled and guarded terms that a flood\\nis coming.\\nJensen, sat among them, which makes better sense.\\nf Jensen, reed hedge; Jastrow, reed hut; Zimmern,\\nreed house.\\nX Client of Marduk, Jastrow.\\nThe beginning of this line is broken. Zimmern understands\\nthat breadth and length are equal, which would make the ship\\nsquare. Jensen s translation is incomprehensible.\\nII Zimmern, the ocean.\\n(387)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0425.jp2"}, "426": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nEa opened his mouth and said to me, his servant, [For\\nanswer] thus shall you speak to them: [because] Bel hates\\nme, I will not remain in your city, will no longer lay down\\nmy head in Bel s place. I will descend to the sea, will take\\nrefuge with the god Ea, who is my lord.\\nBel s dominion is only on land, while Ea is the\\ngod of the deep. Hence by descending to the\\nsea, Sit-napistim escapes from the power of Bel\\nand takes refuge with Ea. Here another motive\\nof the poem is apparent namely, to glorify Ea at\\nthe expense of Bel.* The next few lines are im-\\nperfect and of doubtful meaning\\nHe [Bel] showers great abundance upon you\\nbirds swarm of fishes [two lines gone].\\nThe meaning seems to be, Bel is deceiving you.\\nWhile he appears to be sending you rich bless-\\nings, he is preparing to destroy you in a flood.\\nThe different translators, however, are not in\\nagreement as to this.\\nHe who sends the whirling storm [in the night, he will\\nlet fall on you] terrible rains. f\\nWhen the dawn broke [eleven lines gone], I gathered\\nwhat was required. On the fifth day I planned its form.\\nIn its middle part the walls were ten Gar [120 ells t\\nhigh, ten Gar the deck stretched out.\\nThe next nineteen lines, unfortunately, are\\nvery much mutilated\\nI built it in six stories, divided it sevenfold [perhaps so\\nthat with the vessel s deck or interior it consisted of seven\\nstories]. The interior I divided into nine [compartments],\\nthe water that was in it I poured out. I provided myself\\nJastrow.\\nf Or Yet Samas has fixed the time when the lords of darkness\\nand the evening will shower on you a destroying rain, Zimmern.\\nX Jensen, 140 ells.\\n(388)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0426.jp2"}, "427": {"fulltext": "The Babylonian Ark\\nwith an oar [pole], put what was necessary into it. Six\\nsar of bitumen I poured over the outside, three sar of\\npitch on the inside. I kept back a sar of oil needful for the\\nsacrifices. Two sar of oil the navigator secured. For\\n[the temple of the gods] I slaughtered oxen, killed sheep\\nevery day. Vessels of sesame wine oil and wine\\nof grapes, bowls with like water I made a festival\\nas on New Year s day. Salve I dipped my hand.\\nOn the seventh day was the ship ready was heavy.\\nOne brought in above and below two-\\nthirds of it.\\nThe above paragraph is Zimmern s. Jeremias\\ndoes not attempt to translate it, on account of the\\nSIT-NAPISTIM IN HIS ARK\\nfragmentary condition of the text. Haupt in-\\ngeniously conjectures that the two-thirds al-\\nluded to means that two-thirds of the vessel s\\ndepth is submerged. The description of the\\nvessel is very interesting, and we can only hope\\nthat more of the text will be recovered. The\\nBabylonian ark seems to be conceived as a great\\nhouse boat, six stories high, resting on a flat ves-\\nsel with upturned edges, like the craft still seen\\non the Euphrates.! Within, as in Noah s ark,\\nA large measure. f Jastrow, 498, 499.\\n(389)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0427.jp2"}, "428": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ncompartments or cells are made for the passen-\\ngers and goods. The caulking with bitumen\\nand pitch is strikingly like Genesis; in fact, the\\nsame word is used.* All this reminds us of the\\nPriestly Writer s account. The seven days that\\nelapsed between the warning of Ea and the be-\\nginning of the Flood are the seven days prepara-\\ntion of our Jehovist. So we see how closely the\\nthreads of our traditions are intertwined.\\nI filled it with everything I had. I filled it with all the\\nsilver I had, I filled it with all the gold I had.\\nAccording to Ihering this is the earliest al-\\nlusion in literature to silver and gold as treasures,\\nor, one may say, as money. Babylon is the\\nspot where, as may be historically proved, metal\\nwas first employed as money. f\\nI put into it whatever! had of the seed of life.\\nThe Babylonian writer, who probably had a\\nwider knowledge of the number of animal spe-\\ncies, thinks of saving the seed of all living animals\\nrather than the animals themselves. He speaks\\nof saving animals, it is true, but not with anything\\nlike the fulness of our Biblical account. In his\\nallusion to the seed of living things he has been\\nfollowed by both the Persian legend and the\\nlatest Hindu account. Berosus speaks simply of\\nsaving specimens of all animals. Our narrative\\ncontains an echo of both traditions. The Priestly\\nWriter repeatedly enumerates the birds, beasts,\\nand creeping things, the Jehovist mentions the\\npreservation of animals, but speaks also of the\\nKopher and Kupri.\\nf Evol. of the Aryan, 202, 203.\\n{390)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0428.jp2"}, "429": {"fulltext": "Command to Shut the Door\\nnecessity of keeping seed alive on the face of\\nthe earth. The flood which was originally in-\\ntended to destroy Surippak is already taking on\\nthe dimensions of a universal deluge, an evident\\nsign that more than one tradition is embodied in\\nthe poem.\\nI took into the ship my whole family and my servants,\\ncattle of the field, animals of the field, hand-workmen, I\\nbrought them all together. Samas gave an appointed\\nsign: When he who sends the whirlwind sends in the\\nevening a terrible rainstorm, then go into the ship and\\nshut the door.\\nSIT-NAPISTIM IN HIS ARK\\nIt is very curious to encounter in this place\\nthe incident of the closing of the door. In Izdu-\\nbar the command to close the door is given by the\\ngod. We are not told, as in Genesis, that the god\\nshut Sit-napistim in, and yet there must have\\nbeen a tradition to this effect, for in the cylinder\\nThe sun-god, judge of heaven and earth. He seems to favor\\nSit-napistim, and gives the sign by which he should know it was\\ntime to embark.\\n(391)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0429.jp2"}, "430": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwe see two deities shutting him into the ark,\\nwhile a superior god, apparently Ea, looks ap-\\nprovingly on.\\nThis sign was fulfilled. He who sends the whirlwind\\nsent at night a fearful storm. Before day dawned I\\ntrembled, I was afraid to see the day.\\nThe season of the year is not stated, as it is in\\nGenesis and Berosus. Even in Berosus the\\nlength of the Flood is not calculated, and in Iz-\\ndubar its duration is very brief. The long con-\\ntinuance of the Flood and the exact calculations\\nof our Priestly Writer, therefore, are original, or\\nelse they rest on some tradition not yet discov-\\nered.\\nI entered the ship and shut the door. I gave the care\\nof the ship to Pusur-Bel,* the pilot. The great ark f I\\nentrusted to him.\\nThe mention of the pilot is a further indication\\nthat Sit-napistim s bark did not merely drift on\\nthe water, but sailed. A pilot is necessary for\\npurposes of navigation. Once out of sight of\\nland, as Ihering remarks, the landsman does not\\nknow how to steer his course to reach the desired\\nport, hence Sit-napistim at once resigned the\\ncontrol of the ship to more experienced hands.\\nTo the Hebrews, who knew next to nothing of\\nnavigation, this thought would not occur, hence\\nno mention of a pilot is made in Genesis.^\\nPusur-Bel does not seem to be the same person\\nas Arad-Ea, the pilot of the waters of death,\\nOr Pusur-Shadurabu, hidden or protected in the great re-\\ntreat. Jastrow.\\nf Jensen, house.\\nI Evol. of Aryan, 169.\\n(392)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0430.jp2"}, "431": {"fulltext": "The Beginning of the Flood\\nanother proof that the Flood story is an interpo-\\nlation and not originally part of the poem.\\nWhen the dawn broke, black clouds arose on the\\nhorizon of heaven. Ramman,* Nabu,f and Marduk came\\nout as leaders, marched over hill and valley. The god\\nUrugalJ tore the ship loose.\\nThe ship is conceived as already launched, and\\nlying moored in the Euphrates, not resting on\\ndry ground until the waters floated it, as in\\nGenesis. Several of the deities mentioned in\\nthese verses are gods of the deep and of the lower\\nworld, a hint that the flood comes from beneath\\nas well as from above.\\nNinib\u00c2\u00a7 stepped forth, swam over the banks. Ramman s\\nswelling waves rose to heaven. All the light was turned\\nto darkness like a destroying storm the elements\\nbore down on men. Brother could not see brother, men\\nwere not regarded in heaven. The gods themselves were\\nterrified at the flood, they fled, mounting up to the heaven\\nof Anu. The gods were like dogs crouched on\\nthe mound 1[ [of heaven]. Ishtar shrieked with anger,**\\nshe, the kindly speaking, exalted one, cried: This peo-\\nple is turned again to clay. The evil that I predicted\\nbefore the gods, the evil I predicted the storm\\nthat brings destruction to my men.f f What I have brought\\nforth, where is it? They fill the sea like a school of\\nfishes The gods wept with her over the Annunaki.^:}:\\nA storm god, associated with Samas.\\nf Nabu, god of wisdom, probably of aqueous origin.\\nX God of the lower world.\\nA solar deity, also god of war. Jensen translates storm-sun.\\nII Men care not for one another. In the heavens, etc.\\nThe dam or mountain which supports the firmament.\\nGroaned like a woman in throes.\\nff Jensen, Zimmern and Jastrow believe that she is reproach-\\ning herself. That I should have assented to this evil among\\nthe gods, that when I assented to this evil, I was for the destruc-\\ntion of my own creatures. Jastrow.\\nXt The bad spirits who had let loose the elements. It may be\\nthe gods who were over the Annunaki wept with her. Jensen.\\n(393)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0431.jp2"}, "432": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThis fine and spirited description must have\\nbeen inspired, one would suppose, by the recol-\\nlection of some frightful upheaval of nature, at-\\ntended with great loss of life. Making allowance\\nfor poetical and mythological expression, it\\nwould apply very well to the late destructive\\nstorm in Galveston. Evidently, as Jastrow says,\\nthe Flood is going further than the gods antici-\\npated or desired. Their first intention was but\\nto destroy Surippak, but they have destroyed the\\nworld, and the rising waves threaten even their\\nown abodes; hence their fear. Ishtar now de-\\nclares that she had foretold it. Plainly, two dis-\\ntinct traditions are interwoven in this portion of\\nthe poem; one of the destruction of Surippak,\\nthe other of the general destruction of the world.\\nThe gods sat bent over with weeping, their Hps were\\npressed together. Six days and six nights the\\nstorm wind raged on, the flood, the violent rain. When\\nthe seventh day came, the flood and the rain ceased. The\\nstorm that had fought the fight Hke a war chief, rested.\\nThe sea became narrower, the hurricane, the flood storm\\ncame to an end. Then I looked across the sea, let my\\nvoice go forth, but all men had returned to earth. Like\\nthe uru was the tcsalhi.\\\\ I opened the hatchway: light fell\\non my face. I sank back, sat down and wept. Tears\\nflowed over my face. I looked around: the world was a\\nbroad sea. Land rose [above the surface] 12 ells high.:}:\\nToward the mountain land Nisir the ship took its course.\\nThe mountain of the land Nisir held the ship fast and\\nIhering, who assumes six days and seven nights for the Fl,ood,\\nfinds an allusion here to the Sabbath. The Flood lasted no longer\\nbecause on the Sabbath the gods must rest. It is the idea of\\nthe labor week of the Babylonians referred to the gods. Evol.\\nof Aryan, 153.\\nf Jensen, like bare ground was the forest field Jastrow,\\nin place of dams everything had become a marsh.\\nJastrow, After twelve double hours, i. e., after twenty-four\\nhours. Jensen hesitates between twelve days and twelve double\\nhours.\\n(394)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0432.jp2"}, "433": {"fulltext": "The Mountain of Nisir\\nwould not let it move from the place. One day, a second\\nday the mountain Nisir he ld the ship fast and would not\\nlet it move from its place. A third and a fourth day [repe-\\ntition of the same phrase]. A fifth and a sixth day, etc.\\nAs the seventh day approached, I let a dove fly out.\\nThe situation of the mountain in the land of\\nNisir seems to be settled by Schrader s dis-\\ncovery of an inscription of Assurbanipal, which\\nplaces it beyond the Tigris, east or southeast of\\nthe lower Zab. Holzinger f thinks that this loca-\\ntion corresponds with Berosus Kurdish moun-\\ntains. Berosus, however, asserts that Xisuthros\\nlanding place was in Armenia, which is consider-\\nably north of the lower Zab. Haupt and De-\\nlitzsch, on the contrary, remark that Nisir means\\nnothing but rescue, hence the mountain of\\nrescue has no geographical situation. In view\\nof the fact that the land of Nisir is clearly defined\\nin Assurbanipal s inscription, it can scarcely be\\nregarded as a mythical mountain. The poem of\\nIzdubar, it will be observed, carefully mentions a\\nmountain in the land Nisir. We shall revert to\\nthis subject later. The episode of the birds is\\nperhaps the most striking parallel to Genesis in\\nthe whole narrative. The author is careful to in-\\nform us that the first bird was released seven days\\nafter the stranding of the vessel. Three birds are\\nmentioned in Izdubar and only two in Genesis,\\nbut for the rest the resemblance is convincing.\\nThe dove flew here and there, but because there was no\\nresting place she came back. X Then I let a swallow fly out.\\n*K. A. T.,p. 53-\\nf Gen., p. 87, note 2. See also Budde, Urgeschichte,\\n436 ff.\\nX But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot and she\\nreturned. Gen. viii. g.\\n(395)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0433.jp2"}, "434": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThe swallow flew here and there; because there was no\\nresting place she came back. I let out a raven. The raven\\nflew, saw the abatement of the waters, ate, let itself down\\nit did not come back. Then I let everything out\\n[opened everything] to the four winds and placed a\\nsacrificial gift on the top of the mountain. Seven and seven\\nvessels I set out. I spread out calmus, cedar wood and\\nSim-Gir. f\\nThis reminds us curiously of the sweet per-\\nfume which Jahveh smelled, and which led Him\\nto promise not to curse the earth again with a\\nfiood.J\\nThe gods smelled the perfume. The gods inhaled the\\ngood perfume. The gods swarmed like flies around the\\nsacrificers. When the sublime one [Ishtar] came, she\\nraised up the great lightning that Anu had made for her\\npleasure. These gods! [she cried]. By my necklace, I\\nwill not forget it. i I will think upon these days, I will\\nnot forget them. The gods may come to the sacrifice; Bel\\nshall not come to the sacrifice because he rashly caused\\nthe flood to arise and gave my men over to judgment.\\nWhen Bel came, he saw the ship.^ Then Bel was en-\\nraged. He was filled with anger with the gods of the\\nIgigi.** Who has escaped alive? No man was to escape\\nalive in this judgment. Ninib opened his mouth and\\nspoke to the hero Bel. Who except Ea has done this\\nthing? But Ea knows all oaths. ff\\nEa opened his mouth and spoke to the hero Bel: You\\njudge of the gods, how rashly have you raised this flood.\\nPunish the sinner for his sin, punish the wicked man for his\\nJensen, I went out, offered a sacrifice to the four winds.\\nf Zimmern, incense.\\nX Gen. viii. 21,\\n^Jensen, great intaglios Zimmern, precious jewel.\\nI Ishtar throughout the poem is a very vigorous and living\\nfigure, and thoroughly feminine. She has quite as much vitality\\nas Homer s and Virgil s favorite heroines, but she is a little too\\nviolent.\\nUntil then he did not know that any had escaped.\\nInferior deities, on the whole severe and cruel, used by\\nthe great gods to execute their decrees. Jastrow.\\nff He was aware of your conspiracy.\\n(396)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0434.jp2"}, "435": {"fulltext": "Kesemblances to Genesis\\nwickedness. Be merciful, let him not be destroyed.\\nCherish affection for him, let him not be exterminated.\\nSo the story ends like ours with the promise\\nthat the Flood shall not come again, or, at all\\nevents, with a plea that it may not come again.\\nInstead of raising a flood, let lions come and diminish\\nmen. Instead of a flood, let leopards come and dimin-\\nish men. Instead of a flood, let famine come and [dimin-\\nish] men. Instead of a flood, let a plague come and\\ndiminish men. I did not reveal the counsel of the great\\ngods. I sent Andrahasis f a dream, and so he heard the\\ndecision of the great gods.\\nThen Bel made his decision. The god Bel went up\\non the ship, seized my hand, led me up, led my wife up\\nand caused her to kneel at my side. He embraced us,\\nstepping between us and blessing us. Before this Sit-\\nnapistim was a man. Now, Sit-napistim and his wife shall\\nbe exalted like gods. Sit-napistim shall dwell in the dis-\\ntant regions, at the confluence of streams shall he dwell.\\n[Then they carried us away and caused us to dwell at\\nthe confluence of streams. ^Jensen.]\\nThis, then, is the celebrated Babylonian narra-\\ntive of the Flood, according to the best interpre-\\ntations it has yet received. In spite of minor dif-\\nferences, it is encouraging to see how closely the\\nbest and latest translators are in agreement as\\nto its meaning. It only remains for us to trace\\nthe points of resemblance and of difference be-\\ntween this story and the Flood story of Genesis,\\nand then to try to determine the relation which\\nthe two accounts bear to each other.\\nThe resemblances are very numerous, and I\\nshall mention only the more important. As we\\nlearn at the end of the story, the determining\\nZimmern conjectures with reason, But be merciful, let not\\n(all) be destroyed be patient, that (all) may not be wiped out.\\nf Ea well preserves his reputation for truth and uprightness.\\n(397)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0435.jp2"}, "436": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ncause which moved the Babylonian deities to de-\\nstroy Surippak, was the sinfuhiess of its inhabi-\\ntants. Among these sinners was one righteous\\nman, Sit-napistim, who was warned by the great\\ngod Ea of the coming disaster, and instructed to\\nmake a great vessel to save himself and his fam-\\nily, some animals and the seeds of all forms of\\nlife. The ark is circumstantially described. Its\\ndimensions and proportions originally were care-\\nfully traced, as in the account of our Priestly\\nWriter, although they were differently estimated.\\nEven such details as the description of the stories\\nof the ark, the compartments or cells, the opening\\nand closing of the door, and the caulking of the\\nark with bitumen, are strikingly similar to the\\nstatements of Genesis. The Flood comes seven\\ndays after the warning is given, as in the account\\nof the Jehovist. Of all the coincidences of the\\ntwo traditions the episode of the birds is perhaps\\nthe most indisputable. If this coincidence alone\\nappeared in the two stories, it would prove a\\ncommon origin or borrowing on one side or the\\nother. In the Babylonian poem the deluge was\\npreceded by a heavy rain, which, however, only\\nserved as a sign to Sit-napistim that the Flood had\\nbegun. Then followed a tornado, storm winds\\nand more rain. It is true, the breaking up of the\\ngreat deep is not specifically mentioned, which\\nrather surprises us, as such a conception would\\nbe in entire accord with Babylonian cosmology.\\nThe immediate cause of the Flood is left undeter-\\nmined, and the duration of the Flood is much less\\nthan in either of our accounts.* The points of\\nSit-napistim s vessel grounds after only seven days. Seven\\ndays after the stranding of the ship Sit-napistim sends out his\\n(39^", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0436.jp2"}, "437": {"fulltext": "Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions\\nresemblance thicken toward the end of the story.\\nThe grounding of the Babylonian ark on a moun-\\ntain, the opening of the door, the exit from the\\nark, and the sacrifice of animals, of which the\\ngods joyfully partake all find direct counter-\\nparts in our narrative. The pleasure of the gods\\nin smelling the sweet perfume strangely reminds\\nus of one of the most anthropomorphic verses of\\nour Jehovist, and the assurance that a flood shall\\nnot come again completes a long series of paral-\\nlels. I venture to afhrm that no person accus-\\ntomed to judge of such matters can read these\\ntwo narratives without the conviction that they\\nare closely related. The question is, What is the\\nrelation of these two narratives Do they rep-\\nresent two differentiated forms of the same primi-\\ntive tradition, or was the Hebrew narrative bor-\\nrowed directly from Babylonia, and if so, at what\\ntime?\\nThis, I need hardly say, is an exceedingly dif-\\nficult question, so difficult that it cannot be defi-\\nnitely settled at the present time. One general\\nstatement can safely be made. Closely as our\\nnarrative agrees in many respects with the Flood\\nepisode of Izdubar, no one can pretend that the\\nwhole story of Genesis was derived from that\\npoem. There are certain features, such as the\\ndimensions of the ark, the reckoning of the time\\nin days and months, the landing in Armenia, etc.,\\nin which Genesis agrees more closely with the\\ntradition handed down by Berosus. There are\\nother features, such as the longer duration of the\\nbirds, apparently one after the other. Then he goes out himself.\\nThe Flood therefore seems to have lasted scarcely more than four-\\nteen days.\\n(399)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0437.jp2"}, "438": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nFlood, the slow rise and subsidence of the waters,\\nthe breaking up of the great deep, etc., in which\\nour story agrees with neither of the Babylonian\\ntraditions that we now possess. Moreover,\\nthere are several features in Izdubar, such as Sit-\\nnapistim s prayer for those about to perish, and\\nhis tears for those who had perished, which might\\nvery well have been taken over, but which have\\nbeen entirely omitted. The beautiful rainbow\\nstory, in spite of Sayce s attempt to associate it\\nwith the necklace of Ishtar, is not found in any\\nBabylonian Flood traditions with which we are\\nacquainted. We know, however, that other tra-\\nditions of the Flood existed in Babylon. f Mak-\\ning these allowances and feeling the necessity of\\nobserving the utmost caution in dealing with this\\ndeHcate problem, I may venture the following\\ntentative observations\\nBetween the two narratives recorded in Gen-\\nesis and Izdubar there can be little question as to\\nwhich is the older and the more original. It is\\nonly necessary to say that the poem of Izdubar\\ndates from about 2000 B.C., while the older of\\nour two writers, the Jehovist, lived not earlier\\nthan 900 B.C. It is therefore impossible on his-\\ntorical, to say nothing of linguistic grounds, that\\nthe Babylonian story could have been taken from\\nthe Book of Genesis. There are, however, two\\nother hypotheses permissible, (i) Our narrative\\nmay have been borrowed directly from the Baby-\\nFresh Light from the Monuments, p. 311.\\nf In the eleventh International Congress of Orientalists (Sep-\\ntember, 1897), Scheil presented a tablet dating from the days of\\nHammurabi, in which the story of the Deluge is narrated in a\\nmanner quite different from that of the Gilgamesh episode. Jas-\\ntrow, 507, note i.\\n(400)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0438.jp2"}, "439": {"fulltext": "Origin of Flood Tradition\\nIonian at a comparatively late date, shortly be-\\nfore the Jehovist wrote; or, (2) Both narratives\\nmay represent genuinely ancient national tradi-\\ntions, the Babylonian tradition the older, and the\\nHebrew ultimately depending on it. Let us con-\\nsider the forrrier alternative first. If our nar-\\nrative was borrowed directly from the Babylo-\\nnian, in historical times, what date would be most\\nsuitable for such a wholesale loan to have taken\\nplace It has been frequently asserted that the\\nHebrews did not receive nor write their story of\\nthe Flood until the captivity in Babylon, or even\\nlater. As to the Babylonian captivity proper\\n(605-536 B.C.), this can hardly be maintained, for\\nthe Jehovist, whose narrative most resembles the\\nBabylonian, lived at least a hundred years earlier.\\nDillmann f also is quite right in saying, It is\\ninconceivable that the Hebrews should have ap-\\npropriated from their enemies, the Babylonians,\\na local legend originally quite foreign to them\\nand steeped in the silliest polytheism. We\\nknow, however, that for several centuries before\\nthe Seventy Years, Assyrian armies were con-\\nstantly in Palestine, and that as early as 740 B.C.\\nTiglath-pileser carried portions of the tribes of\\nReuben, Gad and Manasseh away to Assyria. It\\nis therefore not impossible that during the eighth\\ncentury, or somewhat earlier, the tradition first\\ncame to the Hebrews from Babylon or Nineveh.\\nWith this view Budde t seems to agree, speaking\\nof the transmission of spiritual sparks and an\\n*E.g., by Goldziher, Der Mythos bei den Hebraern, p.\\n382 ff., 1876. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? pp. 94, 157,\\nP. Haupt, Der Keilinschriftliche Sintfluthbericht, p. 20, 1881.\\nf Gen., i. 262\\ni Urgeschichte, 515 ff.\\n86 (401)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0439.jp2"}, "440": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\neruption of sagas from Mesopotamia in the\\nninth and eighth centuries, and especiaUy of\\nAhaz s friendship for Tiglath-pileser and the\\nahar Ahaz bought in Damascus,* etc., etc.\\nI do not consider this impossible, but, in view\\nof the hostihty of the Prophets to every form of\\npolytheism, the abhorrence in which Ahaz s\\nmemory was held, and the attitude of the He-\\nbrews toward Assyria, it seems improbable, if the\\nHebrews had not known it before, that such a\\nlegend as the Babylonian Flood story should\\nhave found a place in their Sacred Books at\\nthis time. Since the discovery of the Tel-el-\\nAmarna tablets, all our ideas in regard to the\\ninfluence of Babylonia in Canaan have been pro-\\nfoundly modified. These letters, written in the\\nfifteenth century B.C., in the Babylonian cunei-\\nform characters, prove conclusively that the lan-\\nguage of Babylon was used as a means of com-\\nmunication at that early date in Canaan. But if\\npeople could write the Babylonian dialect, they\\ncould also read it. Without imagining that the\\nancient Hebrews were in the habit of reading\\nBabylonian literature, there is still much reason\\nto believe that Canaan, from very early times,\\nwas penetrated by Babylonian mythology and\\ntradition.! There is therefore no reason why we\\n*II. Kings, 7-16.\\nf So, about the year 1400 B.C., the Semitic dialect of Babylon\\nwas a kind of diplomatic language of commerce, which was learned\\nby educated persons in Syria along with the cuneiform characters.\\nThat numerous other loans followed this, especially the trans-\\nmission of a great mass of Babylonian ideas, is apparent. Ben-\\nzinger s Archaol., p. 67, 1894.\\nThat means simply that at this time (1400 B.C.) people had\\nknowledge of Babylonian literature, at least to a certain degree.\\nFor, to write such Babylonian letters as were then frequently\\n(402)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0440.jp2"}, "441": {"fulltext": "Early Transmission of Legend\\n^i^^^^\\nshould not ascend considerably above the ninth\\ncentury in endeavoring to fix the time at which\\nthe Hebrews became acquainted with the Baby-\\nlonian story of the Flood. Of course, so far as\\nhistorical fact is concerned in such an inquiry as\\nthis, we are at present simply walking on air but\\nin default of definite historical proof in either di-\\nrection, there are other considerations on which\\nwe may legitimately fall back.\\nIt is very improbable that a writer of the moral\\nand religious elevation of our Jehovist should\\nhave appropriated a story full of the crudest and\\nmost revolting polytheism, and should have in-\\ncorporated it into the Hebrews sacred Hterature.\\nIt is at least more probable that the Babylonian\\ntradition had been transmitted orally to the He-\\nbrews in early times; and having undergone\\nmany modifications, had become one of their own\\nnational traditions. This is the impression which\\nthe story of Genesis leaves with us. Although the\\nBiblical writers make no effort to conceal its Bab-\\nylonian origin, there is an unspoken assumption\\nrunning all through the earlier chapters of Gen-\\nwritten in Palestine, the Palestinian writer must have occupied him-\\nself not a little with the Babylonian characters and language.\\nThe learning of several hundred cuneiform symbols, with their\\nphonetic values and meanings, could not have been avoided by a\\nPalestinian wishing to employ them, any more than by a student\\nof Assyriology at the present time. How foreigners set to work\\nto learn Assyrian at that time we can see from the Tel-el-Amarna\\ndiscovery. For alongside of Babylonian vocabularies, collections\\nof signs and other similar aids, which were employed in learning\\nBabylonian, two rather large Babylonian mythical texts were\\nfound, in which Egyptian scribes had indicated the separation of\\nwords by red and black points, and which therefore plainly served\\nas an Assyrian chrestomathy. Through the discovery of these\\ntwo mythological texts it was first established that at this time\\nmythical traditions from Babylonia wandered into the west.\\nZimmern in Gunkel s Schopfung und Chaos.\\n(403)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0441.jp2"}, "442": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nesis that the two peoples were originally one, and\\nthat the ancestors of the Hebrews came from the\\nland of the two rivers. These traditions, which\\nare certainly ancient, can hardly have arisen in\\nthe ninth or eighth century, through the fact that\\nthe Hebrews had borrowed the Babylonian leg-\\nends of Creation and of the Flood.*\\nMoreover, a close comparison of the two nar-\\nratives does not favor the supposition that our\\nFlood story was borrowed directly from any\\nwritten Babylonian account that has come\\ndown to us. In spite of the curious resemblance\\nof details, the impression of the traditions in their\\nentirety is very different. The Flood episode in\\nIzdubar is pure epic poetry, while both our\\nstories are prose. The polytheism with which\\nthe Babylonian story teems has vanished. No\\npart of the Old Testament is more strictly mono-\\ntheistic than the story of the Flood. There is\\nnot a hint in Genesis that our authors are dealing\\nwith foreign ideas; but, on the other hand, the\\nearlier chapters of Genesis, e. g., those containing\\nthe marriage of the sons of God and the daugh-\\nters of men,t the genealogy of Seth, etc., were\\nplainly inserted with reference to the Flood, and\\nthe later chapters about Noah s descendants\\nspring immediately from the Flood story. All\\nthese traditions, therefore, must have been fabri-\\ncated at a late date if the Flood tradition was bor-\\nrowed about the time of the Exile.\\nStill more conclusive is the ethnographical table of Gen. x.,\\nwhich traces the descent of the nations from the three sons of\\nNoah.\\nf I do not mean to imply that these traditions were originally\\ncomposed with reference to the Flood, but it is plain that the writers\\nof Genesis employed them to lead up to that subject.\\n(404)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0442.jp2"}, "443": {"fulltext": "Details of Hebrew Story\\nFurther, many of the details of the narrative\\ndo not give the impression of having been bor-\\nrowed at a late date from the text of the Babylo-\\nnian story. In some respects our account follows\\nBerosus more closely than it follows Izdubar. We\\nshould therefore have to assume that our writers\\nhad several forms of the Babylonian tradition be-\\nfore them. The manner in which Noah s ark is\\ndescribed seems to imply a gradual transforma-\\ntion of the tradition to suit the ideas of a non-\\nmaritime people. Even the episode of the birds,\\non which so much stress is rightly laid, has been\\naltered considerably in our story, and it is just\\none of those beautiful, picturesque touches which\\nwould be remembered forever. Much more im-\\nportant than this is the fact that several incidents\\nof the Babylonian story, profoundly transformed,\\nreappear in other Hebrew traditions which have\\nlittle to do with the Flood. In particular there\\nis the striking episode of the translation of Sit-\\nnapistim or Xisuthros, not a trace of which now\\nappears in the story of Noah. In Genesis, how-\\never, Enoch is translated. So writers have seen\\nin the destruction of Sodom a parallel to the de-\\nstruction of Surippak with which the Babylonian\\nFlood story began. From the expression at the\\nlend of the Sodom story, There is not a man in\\nthe earth, it would appear that the burning of\\n1 Sodom was once part of a story of universal de-\\nstruction.f I might also point to Tiamat as an\\nexample of a mythical Babylonian conception\\nwhich, slightly transformed, has worked its way\\nthrough almost every stratum of the Old Testa-\\nment.\\n*Gen. xix. 31. f Noticed by Ewald.\\n(405)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0443.jp2"}, "444": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nAll these indications point, I think, to a grad-\\nual infiltration of Babylonian myths and tradi-\\ntions into Israelitish soil in very early times, and\\nto their adoption first by the people, rather than\\nto a direct and conscious borrowing by the sacred\\nwriters in comparatively late times. In almost\\nevery case these stories are such as would appeal\\nto the popular imagination, and once learned\\nthey would never be forgotten. 1 will only add\\nthat several of the most able Assyriologists and\\nHebraists, in the main, are in agreement with\\nthis view. Jastrow says, The slight variations\\nbetween the Biblical and the Babylonian narra-\\ntives justify the conclusion that the\\nHebrew story is not borrowed directly from the\\nBabylonian. Gunkel f remarks, Here, too, as\\nwell as in the first chapter of Genesis, the thought\\nof direct assumption [of the Babylonian narra-\\ntive by the writers of Genesis] is wholly remote.\\nJeremias t observes, Certainly the contents of\\nthe narrative in the Bible and in the inscriptions,\\nrepresent an old and common possession of the\\nSemitic tribes of the Euphrates and Tigris land.\\nDuncker,\u00c2\u00a7 whose words Jeremias quotes with ap-\\nproval, expresses himself in the same manner,\\nand adds that in the Hebrew writings the old tra-\\ndition lies before us in a purified and deeper\\nform. Jensen, so far as I am aware, does not\\nexpress himself on this point. Ihering thinks\\nthat the Jews on their separation from the\\nmother nation took this idea [of a flood], like\\nso many others, away with them. Dillmann,Tf\\nRelig-. of Bab., 506. f Schopf. und Chaos, 143 flf.\\nIzdubar-Nimrod, 37. Gesch. des Alt., i. 236.\\nI Evol. of Aryan, 150. Gen., i. 262, 263.\\n(406)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0444.jp2"}, "445": {"fulltext": "Peiser and Scheil\\nwhile willing to admit that specific knowledge of\\nthe Babylonian compositions probably came to\\nIsrael under the kings, still believes that Some\\nvague knowledge of a flood which destroyed\\nmankind was already current among them. On\\nthe other hand, Stade combats the position of\\nGunkel, and insists that the Babylonian saga\\ncame late .to Israel, while Kuenen thinks the\\nlater we place such a borrowing the more com-\\nprehensible it is, which seems to me the reverse\\nof the truth. The earHest allusions to Noah in\\nthe Old Testament are in the Deutero-Isaiah.f\\nand in Ezekiel,$ the Prophet of the Exile, from\\nwhich, however, as Dillmann afhrms, it cannot\\nbe concluded that he was not known before.\\nIn this connection I must not forget to men-\\ntion two other Babylonian Flood traditions which\\nhave been recovered in recent years, both un-\\nfortunately much mutilated. In 1889 Peiser\\npublished a mythological text with a map which\\npurported to give a picture of Babylonia during\\nthe Deluge. 1 1 The text is very fragmentary, but\\nthe map is of great interest, as I shall show in a\\nlater chapter. It represents the Persian Gulf as\\nencroaching on the territory of Babylonia.\\nThe third cuneiform Deluge fragment was dis-\\ncovered by Father V. Scheil among the tablets of\\nthe museum of Constantinople, and was pre-\\nsented by him before the International Congress\\nof Orientalists, which met in Paris in 1897. In\\nJanuary, 1898, Scheil communicated the results\\nof his discovery to Americans in the columns of\\nZ. A. T. W., 1895, p. 160. f Isa. Hv. 9.\\nifEzek. xiv. 14, 20. Gen., i. 262.\\nII Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, iv. 369 ff., 1889.\\n(407)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0445.jp2"}, "446": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthe Independent. His article was followed\\nby two very interesting elucidative and critical\\npapers by Dr. Jastrow.* The importance of\\nScheil s document, which is a mere fragment, lies\\nAn its great age and in the fact that it represents a\\nBabylonian Flood tradition apparently indepen-\\ndent of the epic of Izdubar. It is also exceedingly\\ninteresting to note that the tablet was found in\\nSippara, the seat of Berosus Flood legend, and\\nthat it was written by a scribe of that city. In\\npoint of age this Flood tablet is the oldest we pos-\\nsess. It purports to have been inscribed in the\\nreign of King Ammizaduga (about 2140 B.C.),\\nand as it is a copy, no one can say how old the\\noriginal Flood story may be.\\nThe situation described is this: Ramman, or,\\nas Jastrow thinks, Bel, has determined to destroy\\nmankind, and utters a malediction against men.\\nA deity whom Scheil recognizes as Ea, takes the\\npart of humanity and pleads its cause, as in the\\nIzdubar epic.\\nCol. vii. Ea spake the word\\nAnd said to me:\\nWhy wilt thou make men to die\\nI will reach out my hand to men\\nThe deluge of which thou speakest\\nWhatever it may be, I\\nI shall have produced (in vain\\nHe shall be informed of it\\nTo the end that he build\\nAnd he shall beget\\nThat they may enter (into the ship)\\nThat Pir (napistim take) the oar\\nThat he may come, etc.f\\nNew York Independent, Jan. 20, Feb. 10 and 17, 1898.\\nf I have unfortunately Scheil s first translation only, which ap-\\npeared in the Independent, and I believe has since been\\nemended.\\n(408)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0446.jp2"}, "447": {"fulltext": "Scheil s Fragment\\nFinally there are two lines of a speech by Sit-\\nnapistim, part of whose name has been identified\\nand who is called here Adram-hasis.\\nAdram-hasis utters his word\\nAnd speaks to his lord.\\nIt is quite possible that this version of the\\nFlood, which was written in Sippara, may have\\nbeen one of the sources from which Berosus\\ndrew his account. Berosus, though a priest of\\nBel in Babylon, constantly speaks of Sippara in\\nhis story of the Deluge. There the sacred writ-\\nings are to be concealed. Thither the survivors\\nof the Flood are to return. Fragmentary as\\nthis text is, one might even imagine that it told\\na story which resembled Berosus account more\\nthan the account of Izdubar. The deluge de-\\nscribed seems to be universal, not confined to a\\nsingle city, and Sit-napistim, only a portion of\\nwhose name appears, if it is there at all, is called\\nby the famiHar name Adram-hasis, which in Be-\\nrosus has been corrupted to Xisuthros. Jastrow\\neven goes so far as to conjecture that there were\\noriginally two independent Flood stories in Bab-\\nylonia, the hero of one being Sit-napistim, or,\\nas he prefers, Par-napistim, and the hero of the\\nother, Adra-hasis, in Scheil s fragment written\\nAdram-hasis. Although this tradition is re-\\ngarded as independent of the Izdubar epic, the\\nattitude of the gods, the intercession of Fa, his\\nwarning to Sit-napistim, etc., seem to be much\\nthe same as in that poem.\\nThe second column, which is also very much\\niniured, Scheil translates as follows:\\n(409)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0447.jp2"}, "448": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nCol. ii. That\\nThat he has\\nThat he should kill, that he should destroy,\\nIn the morning that he should rain down the\\nextermination\\nThat during the night he should prolong\\nThat he should rain down the inundation\\nThe plain, he will make its ruin great; the\\ncity\\nThat which Ramman shall have accomplished,\\nHe says he will overturn the land\\nHe raises a cry\\n(The gods) will not fear.\\nUnfortunately, this is hardly intelligible.\\nI may sum up the result of this investigation as\\nfollows It is not impossible that the Flood story,\\nas several excellent writers have believed, is part\\nof a primitive tradition which the Hebrews\\nshared with the Babylonians. Leaving that hy-\\npothesis on one side, we know^ that at a very early\\nperiod, before the Hebrews entered Canaan,\\nmany Babylonian myths were almost certainly\\nknown to the Canaanites, who wrote the Baby-\\nlonian language. It is therefore permissible to\\nsuppose that the more striking of these myths\\nwere handed down in Canaan, where the He-\\nbrews learned them from the Canaanites, who\\ntaught them so many other things. Such myths\\nwould be the more congenial to them as they\\nwere probably very similar to the Hebrews own\\nearliest traditions. I would, however, by no\\nmeans exclude the idea that at a later time,\\nshortly before our earliest Genesis was com-\\nposed, the Hebrews came in contact with the lit-\\nerary versions of the Babylonian stories which\\nwe possess, and very likely with other additional\\nversions that may yet be discovered. Indeed,\\n(410)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0448.jp2"}, "449": {"fulltext": "Literary Versions\\nthis supposition seems to me necessary in order\\nto account for those minute points of resem-\\nblance between the narratives, which surely\\nwould have been obscured if the Hebrew tradi-\\ntion had been handed down orally for hundreds\\nof years before it was reduced to writing.\\n(411)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0449.jp2"}, "450": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Nineteen:\\nThe Flood Traditions of Primitive Peoples\\nI LJEFORE we pass to the consideration of the\\nU traditions of the Deluge preserved by\\nprimitive peoples in different parts of the world,\\nI should like to express an opinion as to the\\nnature of the occurrence itself. I have said\\nmore than once that no universal Deluge, cover-\\ning the tops of high mountains, has taken place\\non this earth in historical times. Certainly no\\nsuch universal destruction of life occurred at the\\ntime when the Hebrew Scriptures placed our\\nFlood, which is represented as occurring only\\nabout 2500 years before Christ. At that time,\\nEgypt, in the valley of the Nile, had reached a\\nhigh state of civilization, yet Egypt was not de-\\nstroyed. On what, then, was our Flood story\\nbased? In a subsequent chapter I shall attempt\\nto give a specific answer to this legitimate ques-\\ntion. Here I will content myself with noticing\\nsome erroneous views. What compHcates this\\nquestion is the fact that the Hebrews and Baby-\\nlonians are by no means the only peoples that\\nhave preserved a tradition of the destruction of\\nthe world by water. Traditions of a flood are\\nto be found in almost every quarter of the world.\\nThis strange fact has for centuries obscured the\\ndiscussion of this question. It is easy to see what\\n(412)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0450.jp2"}, "451": {"fulltext": "Universality of Flood\\nsupport the wide diffusion of a Flood legend\\nhas given to the dogma of literalists, that a uni-\\nversal Deluge actually occurred, of which these\\nnumerous traditions are the echoes. This his-\\ntorical fact, the diffusion of a Flood tradition, in\\nits turn receives powerful support from a physical\\nfact, namely, that the remains of sea animals,\\nwhales, turtles, petrified fishes and marine shells\\nare to be found in many parts of the world, on\\nmountains or other elevated places, far inland or\\nlifted high above the present level of the sea.\\nThese two apparently independent facts, both\\nwhich appear to furnish powerful support to the\\nliteral acceptance of the statements of Genesis,\\nsufficiently explain why the old belief in a univer-\\nsal Deluge has been maintained with the utmost\\nobstinacy. As to the scientific aspect of this ques-\\ntion, I have nothing to say. Long as the con-\\ntroversy between theology and geology was\\nwaged, it is waged no longer. In this unequal\\nconffict, geology has remained absolutely in pos-\\nsession of the field. In fact, the whole dispute\\nhas for us now only an historical interest. It\\nwould be a difficult task to discover any first-\\nclass theological or Biblical text-book written\\nwithin the past ten years, which maintains the\\nuniversality of Noah s Flood. Even so conserva-\\ntive a work as Smith s Dictionary of the Bible\\nasserts the contrary. If you will look at the\\nEnglish edition of that well-known work, you\\nwill observe that under the word Deluge you\\nare referred to the word Flood. Turning to\\nFlood, you are again referred to the word\\nNoah, where you will find a fairly good article\\nby the Very Rev. Dr. Perowne. The reason of\\n(413)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0451.jp2"}, "452": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthis game of hide-and-seek in the Dictionary is\\nsaid to be as follows The purpose of the editor\\nwas to avoid another controversy with geology,\\nbut to maintain the strict universality of the\\nFlood. He committed this difficult task to a\\nman of abihty. But when this gentleman s arti-\\ncle on The Deluge was submitted, it was\\nfound to bristle with heresies, in consequence of\\nwhich it had to be rejected. A second and more\\nconservative scholar was chosen to write on The\\nFlood, but his article proved worse than the\\nfirst. Only one other reference could decently be\\nmade. Accordingly, Dr. Perowne was commis-\\nsioned to write on Noah, and though, as\\nBishop Colenso remarked, he practically con-\\ncedes the whole thing, the editors, despairing of\\ndoing better, were obliged to publish his article.\\nA similar surrender is found in Home s celebrated\\nIntroduction to the Scriptures, from which\\nthe old argument from fossils was quietly\\ndropped in the seventh edition (about 1856).*\\nThose who are interested in the history of the\\nscientific controversy will find it fully treated in\\nAndrew D. White s History of the Warfare of\\nScience with Theology (chapter v.), and more\\nformally in Zockler s Geschichte der Bezie-\\nhungen zwischen Theologie und Naturwissen-\\nschaft. t Here I will merely say that the nu-\\nmerous remains of shells, fossil fishes, etc., de-\\nposited in places which the sea does not now\\nreach, could by no means be accounted for by a\\nThe statement in regard to Smith s Diet, of the Bible\\nrests on the word of Dr. W. D. Carpenter, the physiologist. Both\\nstatements are here taken from Andrew D. White s Warfare of\\nScience with Theol., i. 234, 235.\\nf 2 vols., Glitersloh, 1877, pp. 122, 470, 784 fif.\\n(414)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0452.jp2"}, "453": {"fulltext": "Diffusion of Flood Tradition\\nflood which, at longest, lasted but one year.\\nThey were the work of ages. When we discover\\nunmistakable signs of the sea s presence and ac-\\ntion on high mountains, it is natural to suppose\\nthat the sea once covered those mountains; but\\nit is also possible that those mountains were once\\npart of the bed of the sea and were afterward\\nelevated. It is this supposition which finds favor\\nwith geologists.\\nThe second great fact, however, the wide dif-\\nfusion of the Flood tradition, is not so easily dis-\\nmissed. If no universal Deluge has occurred,\\nhow does it happen that races so remote as the\\nBabylonians, the Australians, the Mexicans, the\\nEskimos and the Peruvians, have preserved un-\\nmistakable traditions of such a flood? Before\\nwe attempt to answer this question, I should like\\nto make two preliminary observations, (i) If any\\nsuch universal catastrophe had occurred in his-\\ntorical times, not merely some nations, but all\\nancient nations, must have suffered from it. But,\\nas we have seen, no tradition of the Flood has\\nbeen preserved in Egypt, and no true Flood le-\\ngend exists in China, although the Chinese and the\\nEgyptians were the two nations of antiquity that\\nwere most careful to preserve their history. This\\none fact is fatal to the supposition that all these\\ntraditions arose from the recollection of a com-\\nmon physical catastrophe. (2) It is well known\\nthat savage nations like the native Australian\\ntribes, the Eskimos and the American Indians, do\\nnot remember anything very long. At all events,\\nthey have no ancient history. Von Hahn re-\\nmarks that at a low grade of culture, the mem-\\nory of the most striking events is preserved for\\nl4n)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0453.jp2"}, "454": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nonly a few generations. Sir John Lubbock cites\\nseveral examples of this fact; e.g., the speedy\\nobliteration of Tasman s visit from the minds of\\nthe New Zealanders, and the American Indians\\nforgetfulness of so important an event as the\\nvisit of De Soto.f Tyler asserts that the lower\\nraces loose in preserving tradition, and ever\\nready to clothe myth in its shape, can seldom be\\ntrusted in their stories of long past ages. J\\nNow, however we may regard the Flood story,\\nif the flood described in the Babylonian and the\\nHebrew Scriptures occurred at all, it occurred\\nbefore 2000 B.C., since one of the Babylonian ac-\\ncounts possesses this great age. Accordingly,\\nit would be necessary to suppose that such races\\nas the Eskimos, which possess no knowledge of\\nthe events of a hundred years ago, have preserved\\nthe recollection of this event for more than 3500\\nyears. This is too improbable.\\nWe pass now to a brief study of the diffusion\\nof the Flood tradition among the lower races of\\nmankind. In our former study of this tradition\\namong the great civilized nations of the old\\nworld, we did not find independent traditions of\\na universal Deluge to be at all numerous; in fact,\\nit may well be supposed that the Hebrew, Hindu,\\nPersian and Greek stories all rest ultimately on\\nthe old Babylonian tradition. In studying the\\nFlood myth among savage and barbarous peoples\\nof modern times, we are dealing with very dif-\\nferent material. Here we have not carefully\\nwritten native documents, but for the most part,\\n*Tylor, however, calls attention to the fact that Tasman did\\nnot land in New Zealand. Early Hist, of Mankind, i6i.\\nf Prehistoric Times, 426 f.\\nI Primitive Culture, i. 39.\\n(416)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0454.jp2"}, "455": {"fulltext": "Geographical Distribution\\nmere oral traditions, collected by travellers and\\nmissionaries among peoples possessing some\\nknowledge of the Bible and of Noah s Flood. iC^\\nWe are therefore obliged to be constantly on our ,-^--s^*-\\nguard. Many of the most striking resemblances ^.it.-^\\nthat have been pointed out between these stories\\nand our own can be explained by the fact that\\nthe native myths have been profoundly influ-\\nenced by Genesis. In fact, almost every modern\\nFlood story recorded by Christian missionaries!\\nand travellers is open to this suspicion, and!\\ntherefore each must be judged on its own merits.-\\nAmong all the Flood stories of ancient and mod-\\nern times that Andree has been able to collect, he\\nrecognizes only fort} as original and independ-\\nent, and some of these ought to be eliminated.*\\nIn regard to its geographical distribution, we\\nmay say that the Flood story is found in western\\nAsia, Thibet, India, in the peninsula of Kam-\\nchatka, on the continent of Australia, in New\\nGuinea, Polynesia and Melanesia, and in Micro-\\nnesia as far as the Sandwich Islands. The conti-\\nnent of North America is rich in Flood stories\\nfrom the Arctic Circle to Mexico. So are also\\nCentral and South America and Greenland. On\\nthe other hand, the Flood story does not appear\\nat all in Arabia, in central and northern Asia, in\\nChina or Japan. On the whole continent of\\nAfrica, it occurs scarcely at all except under\\nChristian influences. The only Flood traditions\\nDie Flutsagen, ethnographisch betrachtet, Richard Andree,\\n^Braunschweig, 1891. In the following discussion, in addition to\\nthis excellent though incomplete work, I have consulted Schwarz s\\nSintfluth und Volkerwanderungen Ratzel s Volkerkunde\\nWaltz s Anthropologic; Brinton s Myths of the New\\nWorld Bancroft s Native Races of the Pacific States.\\n(417)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0455.jp2"}, "456": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nof Europe not directly influenced by the Bible\\nare those of the Greeks, which probably have a\\nSemitic origin, and perhaps the Lithuanian tra-\\nditions. In the East Indies, the Flood story\\noccurs so seldom that in this general survey it\\ncan be disregarded. I may add that the Bud-\\ndhist religion in general knows nothing of a\\nFlood, and that the only knowledge Islam pos-\\nsesses of it came directly or indirectly from the\\nBible.\\nWe see, therefore, that the Flood tradition is\\nby no means so general as many writers as-\\nsume. And yet its wide diffusion astonishes us.\\nI doubt if any similar myth or tradition has\\nfound such general acceptance among peoples\\nso diverse. Out of this vast mass of mythical tra-\\ndition, a large part of which has not yet been\\ncollected and sifted, I can present to you only a\\nfew specimens but I shall choose these from va-\\nrious parts of the globe, so that from a few you\\nmay form a conception of all.\\nIn Europe the Lithuanians have a curious le-\\ngend. The chief of their gods, Pramzimas, one\\nday looked out over the world from the window\\nof his heavenly house and beheld nothing but\\nwar and wickedness among men. Accordingly\\nhe sent two giants, Wandu and Wejas, to the\\nsinful earth, who wasted and destroyed it for\\ntwenty days and nights. Pramzimas looked\\ndown again while he was eating heavenly nuts,\\nand threw down a shell which rested on the top\\nof one of the highest mountains. On this moun-\\ntain the animals and several men and women had\\ntaken refuge. They all got into the nutshell,\\nwhich floated on the flood that now covered\\n(418)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0456.jp2"}, "457": {"fulltext": "Australia and Hawaii\\neverything. The god turned his face a third\\ntime to the earth, and caused the storm to abate\\nand the water to run off. The rescued men and\\nwomen separated, and only one couple remained\\nin the quarter of the world from which the Lithu-\\nanians come. They, however, were old, and\\nthey were concerned about offspring. Pram-\\nzimas then sent a rainbow to comfort them,\\nwhich advised them to jump over the bones of\\nthe earth. Nine times they jumped, and nine\\npairs of human beings appeared, who became\\nthe parents of the nine Lithuanian tribes.* Un-\\nquestionably this story was influenced by the\\nBible, though it is strongly tinctured with\\nheathen mythology. The reappearance of the\\nGreek episode of the stones from which the new\\nrace is made, is very curious.\\nIn Australia, as I have said, the Flood legend\\nis very common. The natives of Victoria tell\\nthis short story among others Long, long ago,\\nwhen our fathers were living, there was a great\\nflood. All the land round about stood under\\nwater, and all the black fellows drowned except\\none man and two or three women, who took\\nrefuge in a little island near Port Albert. Then\\nthe pelican came in a canoe, saw the poor people\\nand rescued them. f This seems to be a genu-\\nine native story, though the part played by the\\nbird is curious.\\nAnother characteristic native Flood story\\ncomes from Hawaii. Hawaii, like so many of the\\nislands of the Pacific, contains volcanoes. Ac-\\nGrimm, Deutsche Mythologie, 3d ed., 545.\\nf Broug-h Smith, The Aborigines of Victoria, i. 477, Mel-\\nbourne, 1878. Quoted by Andree.\\n(419)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0457.jp2"}, "458": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ncordingly, one of the chief deities of the Ha-\\nwaiians is a terrible, subterranean fire-goddess,\\nPele, who goes from one island to another, bor-\\ning out mountains and filling them with fire.\\nOnce, long ago, when Pele lived in Samoa or\\nNew Zealand, her husband left her and fled with\\nanother goddess to the Island of Hawaii. The in-\\nfuriated Pele started in pursuit, taking with her\\nher frightful brothers and sisters, the Cloud-king,\\nthe Lightning, the Thunder-man, the Fire-\\nthrower, the Boat-breaker with fiery eyes, the\\nHeaven-splitter. To aid Pele on her voyage,\\nher parents gave her the sea, which bore the boat\\nalong. Hawaii was at that time a horrible desert\\nwithout water, but Pele caused such a flood to\\narise that only the peaks of the highest moun-\\ntains were visible. Then the sea sank again to\\nits present level.*\\nThis story seems like a reminiscence of an\\nearthquake accompanied by a volcanic outbreak.\\nMany of these islands have their own local\\nFlood stories. The following is from Pelew, one\\nof the Caroline group. Old Dame Milath, who\\nhad brought forth four countries, lived at a very\\nadvanced age in Eirrai. The people of that\\nplace had killed Atndokt, one of the seven Kalit\\n(heroes, protecting deities) and as his friends\\nwent everywhere in search of him, they came at\\nlast to the door of Milath s house. In the most\\nfriendly manner she bade them enter, and asked\\nthem for whom they were looking. They told\\nher the sad news and resolved in their anger to\\ndestroy all the inhabitants with the exception\\nof Milath. They instructed her therefore to\\n*Frd. Ratzel, Volkerkunde, ii. 315, 316.\\n(420)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0458.jp2"}, "459": {"fulltext": "Pelew and Leeward Islands\\nmake a raft of bamboo, securing it with a long\\nrope in front of her house, and shortly before\\nthe full moon, to store it with provisions, and\\nto sleep on it. The woman did as they com-\\nmanded, and soon the water covered all the dry\\nland, and only the raft of Milath lived on the\\nflood. Soon, however, the cable became too\\nshort, and Milath was washed off the raft and\\ndrowned. Her body was carried ashore, where\\nthe friends who had warned her turned her body\\ninto stone or, according to another version, the\\ngoddess (Kalit) entered into it and became the\\nmother of the present inhabitants of Pelew.*\\nAnother celebrated story, from the Leeward\\nIslands (western group of Society Islands), runs\\nas follows A certain god Ruahatu, the Neptune\\nof the South Sea, used to repose between coral\\nclififs, at the bottom of the sea, in consequence\\nof which that spot was considered sacred. But\\na fisherman, who either was not aware of this\\ntahu, or who disregarded it, sailed his boat into\\nthe forbidden waters and threw out his hook be-\\ntween the corals. The hook became entangled\\nin the hair of the god, who was sleeping below.\\nWhen the fisherman attempted to pull up his\\nline, he found it was fast, and after tugging long\\nand hard, he managed to draw up to the surface\\nof the water the rudely-awakened and angry\\ngod. After Ruahatu had reproached the fish-\\nerman for his fault, he declared that the land had\\nbecome sinful and must be destroyed. The ter-\\nrified fisherman threw himself on his knees and\\nimplored the god either not to carry out his pur-\\npose or to allow him to escape. Ruahatu was\\nFrd. Ratzel, Volkerkunde, ii. 320.\\n(421)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0459.jp2"}, "460": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmollified, and commanded the fisherman to\\nhasten home to his wife and child, and to take\\nthem to a little island, Toa-marama, where they\\nwould be safe, while all the other islands would\\nbe destroyed. This the fisherman did, taking\\nwith him not only his wife and child and a friend,\\nbut also his dogs, pigs and chickens. Before\\nnight they reached the island, and as the sun rose\\nthe next morning, the waters of the ocean began\\nto rise. The inhabitants left their homes and fled\\nto the mountains, but the waters continued to\\nrise until the very peaks of the mountains were\\ncovered and all the people were drowned. When\\nthe flood began to subside, the fisherman re-\\nturned to his home and became the father of the\\npresent inhabitants. The island Tao-marama, to\\nwhich he retired, is a little round, coral island,\\nbarely two feet above the level of the sea, and\\nwhen the present inhabitants are asked why it\\nwas not submerged they do not know what to\\nsay. They point, however, to the remains of\\ncorals and mussels which are found on the moun-\\ntains, as a proof of the height to which the waters\\nrose.\\nI will not multiply these Polynesian traditions,\\nthough I have collected many others. f Although\\nChristian influence is apparent in some of them,\\nothers appear to be of purely native origin. It\\nwould seem that most of these stories arose very\\nsimply from the observation of natural phenom-\\nena, which afterward were given a mythical inter-\\nW. Ellis, Polynesian Researches, ii. 58.\\nf See Andree, 55 f.; Ratzel, ii. 317, 310 f.; Lenormant, Be-\\ngin, of Hist., chap, viii.; Tylor, Early History of Mankind,\\n325-332-\\n(422)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0460.jp2"}, "461": {"fulltext": "Geographical Conditions\\npretation. These islands are generally either of\\nvolcanic or of coral formation. Many of them\\nare elevated but a few feet above the sea. They\\nlie in a zone of earthquakes and hurricanes, from\\neither of which causes low-lying islands are sub-\\nmerged. In consequence of submarine disturb-\\nances, islands have been known to sink and dis-\\nappear. Traditions of these recurring events\\nwould naturally be preserved, and in time would\\nbe invested with mythical characteristics. Even\\nsuch points of resemblance with Genesis as a\\nwarning or the escape of a certain person in a\\nboat or on a raft, would arise so naturally among\\npeople who spend their lives on the water and\\nwho are accustomed to read the signs of regu-\\nlarly recurring storms, that they need cause us\\nlittle surprise. It does not seem to me, there-\\nfore, that these myths present any particular\\nproblem which renders it necessary to coordi-\\nnate them with similar tales in other parts of the\\nworld. They are sufficiently accounted for by\\nclimatic and geographical conditions, embel-\\nlished by the myth-making faculty of primitive\\npeoples. Where similarity to Genesis becomes\\napparent, it is due to the direct influence of the\\nBible.\\nI shall not linger over the Flood stories of Asia.\\nThey are to be found in many parts of the conti-\\nnent, in Cashmir, Thibet, Kamchatka and in\\ndifferent parts of India, but they are not par-\\nticularly interesting or original. In northern\\nand central Asia, Andree has been able to find no\\nFlood traditions, and also in China and Japan\\nThe so-called Flood story of China, frequently quoted is merely\\na record of a local freshet caused by the overflow of the IIoang--Ho.\\n(423)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0461.jp2"}, "462": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthey are wholly absent. In Europe, besides the\\ntwo traditions of the Greeks and the Lithuanian\\nstory which we have already related, there is a\\ntale in the younger Edda which informs us how\\nthe sons of the god Boer killed the giant Ymir,\\nfrom whom flowed such a deluge of blood that\\nall the giants except one were drowned. This,\\nhowever, can hardly be called a Flood tradition,\\nas it occurred before the creation of man. The\\nWelsh also have an old legend to the effect that\\nall Britain was once overwhelmed with water, in\\nwhich all the inhabitants perished except Dwy-\\nvan and Dwyvach, who founded a new race.*\\nFrom the way the preservation of animals is de-\\nscribed in this story, it appears to be adapted\\nfrom the Bible.\\nIn Africa the Flood story almost, if not alto-\\ngether, disappears. Livingstone, in the course\\nof his long journeys, found one insignificant\\nFlood tradition, which, however, only described\\nthe formation of a lake. Other African Flood\\nstories may usually be ascribed to Christian in-\\nfluences.!\\nWe come then to America, a country rich in\\nFlood myths, and possessing many stories of a\\nvery interesting character. We shall begin with\\nthe North and mention one or two Eskimo tales.\\nThe water had poured itself over the earth, so that every-\\nthing was convulsed with terror. The habitations of men\\nwere swept away, the wind tore them. They tied many\\nboats together, side by side. The waves overflowed the\\nmountains, a great wind drove them over the earth. The\\nFor this and for the foregoing incident from the Edda, see\\nGrimm, Deutsche Mythol., 546.\\nf Livingstone, Missionary Travels and Researches in South\\nAfrica, p. 353. Harper Bro., 1858.\\n(424)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0462.jp2"}, "463": {"fulltext": "Eskimo and Indian Tales\\nmen dried themselves in the sun. The world and the earth\\nvanished, men died by reason of a frightful heat, also the\\nwaves killed them. Men trembled, they shuddered, the\\nuprooted trees were driven here and there at the pleasure\\nof the waves. The men who trembled from the cold\\nbound their barks together. Ah! Under a tent which they\\nerected they cowered together. Then one man, called the\\nson of the owl, threw his bow into the flood. Wind,\\nstop blowing, he called; it is enough. Then this man\\nthrew his earrings into the water. Then came the end.*\\nAnother Eskimo tale is interesting as showing\\nhow such myths may arise\\nA long time ago the sea suddenly began to rise until it\\ncovered the whole land. The water rose till it covered the\\ntops of the mountains, and the ice floated over them. When\\nthe water receded, the ice remained stranded and formed\\nthe peaks of the mountains. Many mussels, fish, seals,\\nand whales remained on dry land, where their skeletons can\\nstill be seen. A great many Eskimos died in this flood,\\nbut many others, who at the beginning of the flood took\\nrefuge in their kajaks, were rescued. f\\nAs we have seen in Europe in our century, the\\npresence of fossils, bones, etc., at a great height\\nabove the water, is one of the motives of many\\nFlood stories.\\nThe Flood stories of the American Indians in\\nall parts of the continent, from the Atlantic to the\\nPacific, are so numerous that I shall be able to\\nmention only a tiny fraction of them. The dif-\\nficulty with most Indian traditions is that they\\nwere collected at a late date, long after the\\ngreater number of Indian tribes had felt the con-\\ntact of Christianity. We are therefore not sur-\\nprised to find in many of these stories echoes of\\nPetitot, Vocabulaire frangaise-esquimau, Paris, 1876,\\nxxxiv., quoted by Andree.\\nf Franz Boas, The Central Eskimo, Sixth Annual Report of\\nthe Journal of Ethnology, 637, quoted by Andree.\\n(425)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0463.jp2"}, "464": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nGenesis. It does not follow by any means, how-\\never, because we find evident traces of Noah s\\nFlood in these recitals, that the whole Indian\\nstory is borrowed. As a rule, we are justified\\nin deducting only those elements that were un-\\nmistakably taken from the Bible. The remainder\\nin most cases will be found to be original and\\ngenuine.\\nThe Algonquins possessed traditions of the\\nCreation and the Flood, written in their peculiar\\npicture-writing, and this echo of Genesis from the\\nforests and prairies of America is very interest-\\ning.\\nIn the beginning were great waters over all land. And\\nover the waters were thick clouds, and there was God, the\\nCreator, the First Being, eternal, almighty, invisible, God\\nthe Creator. He created great waters, great lands, and\\nmuch air and heaven. He created the sun, moon and\\nstars, etc.*\\nThis account of Creation is certainly taken\\nfrom the Bible the story of the Flood, however,\\nseems quite original.\\nA long time ago came the mighty serpent (Maskanako),\\nwhen men had become bad. The strong serpent was the\\nenemy of the creatures, and they became confused and\\nhated one another. Then they fought and destroyed one\\nanother and had no peace. And the little men (Mattapewi)\\nfought with the keeper of the dead (Nihanlowit). Then\\nthe strong serpent resolved to destroy all men and creat-\\nures together. It brought the black snake and monsters,\\nand raging waters. The raging waters spread over the\\nmountains everywhere, destroying everything. On the\\nThis picture-writing was published by E. G. Squier, who got\\nit from G. S. Rafinesque, Rafinesque obtained the original bark\\ncopy from the remnant of the Delaware tribe on the White River\\nin 1822, and there is no reason to doubt its genuineness. See\\nHistorical and Mythological Traditions of the Algonquins, etc.,\\nread before the New York Historical Society, quoted by Andree.\\n(426)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0464.jp2"}, "465": {"fulltext": "OjiBWAY Legend\\nTurtle Island was Manabozho.. the grandfather of men and\\ncreatures. Born a creeper, he can move and live on Turtle\\nIsland. The men and creatures float about on the waters,\\nand look everywhere for the back of the turtle (Tulapin).\\nOf sea monsters were there many, and they destroyed many\\nof (the men). Then the daughter of a spirit helped them\\ninto a boat, and all together cried out, Come, help, Mana-\\nbozho, the grandfather of all creatures, men, and turtles.\\nAll together on the turtle there, the men there, all were\\ntogether. Greatly terrified, Manabozho commanded the\\nturtle to restore all things. Then the waters ran back,\\nmountain and plain were dried, and the great Evil One\\nwent somewhere else on the hollow path.\\nIn this curious myth there seems to be nothing\\ntaken from the Bible unless it be the serpent,\\nthe enemy of the creatures. The combination\\nof the snake and the tortoise reminds us much\\nmore of the mythology of India, in which the\\nworld itself is often conceived as a great tortoise\\nswimming on the water, or else the tortoise car-\\nries the world on his back, aided by the serpent\\nSesha.*\\nAmong the Ojibways on Lake Superior the\\nfollowing story is related. It is perhaps the most\\nelaborate of all the modern Flood traditions\\nMenaboshu, a demigod, was a great friend of the wolves,\\nand a little wolf with whom he used to go hunting, was his\\nspecial pet. Him he warned not to walk on the ice of the\\nlake in which lived the great serpent king, Menaboshu s\\nbitterest foe. But the little wolf, having his curiosity\\naroused by this warning, with some trepidation set out to\\nwalk on the ice of this lake. He came to the middle.\\nThere he broke through and drowned. In vain Mena-\\nboshu waited for his little friend, wolf; he did not come.\\nThen he mourned and lamented aloud and spent the rest\\nof the winter sorrowing. But he knew well who had\\nkilled his little brother the Serpent-King, to whom, in\\nwinter he could do nothing. When the spring came,\\nMenaboshu went to the lake, where he discovered the tracks\\nSee Tylor s Early Hist, of Mankind, 340, 341.\\n(427)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0465.jp2"}, "466": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nof his little brother, and again he lamented loud. The\\nSerpent- King heard it and lifted his horned head out of the\\nwater. Now shall you atone for your misdeeds, thought\\nMenaboshu, and turned himself into the stump of a tree\\nwhich lay beside the lake. The Serpent-King and all the\\nserpents were puzzled over this stump which they had never\\nseen before on the shore, and stormed angrily about it.\\nA serpent twenty ells long wrapped his body round the\\ntrunk and pressed it and squeezed it in order to see\\nwhether anything living was inside it. But though Mena-\\nboshu felt all his limbs cracking, he held out and gave no\\nsign. That satisfied the serpents, and they all lay down\\non the beach to sleep. Then Menaboshu crept out of his\\nstump and shot the Serpent-King and three of his sons.\\nThe other snakes, however, slipped away into the lake,\\nlamenting. They made a bitter lamentation, and scattered\\nthe contents of their medicine sacks on the shore, and\\naround the wood. Then the water began to turn in\\ntroubled circles and to swell. The heaven was clothed\\nwith black clouds, and mighty streams of rain shot down\\nfrom above. The whole country, half the earth, was over-\\nwhelmed, at last the whole wide world. Poor Menaboshu\\nflew away, terrified to death. He hopped from one moun-\\ntain to another like a scared squirrel, and knew not where\\nto lay himself, for the swelling waves followed him every-\\nwhere. At last he discovered a very high mountain, on\\nwhich he found refuge. But even this mountain was soon\\nsubmerged. At its extreme apex stood a pine tree, a hun-\\ndred ells high, and up this tree Menaboshu climbed. He\\nclimbed to the very top, the water close behind him. It\\nreached him, it rose to his belt, to his shoulders, to his\\nlips. Then suddenly it stood still, either because the ser-\\npents had exhausted their magic, or because they thought\\nit was enough, and that Menaboshu never could have es-\\ncaped. But Menaboshu, uncomfortable as his situation\\nwas, held out and stood for five days and nights on his\\npine tree, tormenting himself in vain as to how he could\\nhelp himself.\\nAt last, on the sixth day, he saw a solitary bird. It was\\na loon swimming on the water. He called it to him and\\nsaid to it, Brother Loon, do me a favor, and dive down\\ndeep, and see if you can find the earth, without which I\\ncannot live, or if it is altogether drunk up. The loon did\\nit; he dove many times, but he could not go deep enough,\\nand he came back without attaining his object, bringing\\nthe sad tidings that the earth was not to be found. Mena-\\nboshu was nearly in despair.\\nOn the next day he saw the stiffened body of a muskrat,\\n(428)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0466.jp2"}, "467": {"fulltext": "Mexican Culture\\nknocked around by the waves. He fished it out, and by\\nhis warm breath he brought it back to Hfe. Then he said\\nto it: Little brother rat, neither of us can live without the\\nearth. Dive into the water, and if you can find it, bring\\nme some earth. If it is only three grains of sand, I shall\\nbe able to make something out of them. The obliging\\nanimal dived immediately, and after a long time reap-\\npeared. But it was dead and floated on the water. Mena-\\nboshu took it up and discovered in one of its little paws a\\ncouple of grains of sand. He took them, dried them\\nin his hand in the sun, and then blew them away on the\\nwater, and where they fell they floated and grew, in con-\\nsequence of the hidden strength of the earth, or through\\nMenaboshu s magic breath. First little islands arose,\\nwhich quickly united and grew great. At last Menaboshu\\nwas able to spring from his uncomfortable seat in the tree\\nto one of the islands. He sailed around on it as if on a\\nraft. Half the other islands grew together, and at last be-\\ncame great lands. Menaboshu then became creator and\\nruler of the new earth.*\\nThis fine and spirited story does not appear\\nto contain any Biblical element, unless it be, as\\nAndree points out, the sending of the animals to\\nfind land. In another version of the narrative\\nwhich I have seen, the episode of the animals does\\nnot occur. It will be noticed that Menaboshu\\ndoes not build a ship.\\nI pass over many other interesting Indian\\nlegends in order to notice the traditions of the\\nsemi-civilized American peoples. It is well\\nknown that the Mexicans at an early date at-\\ntained a degree of culture unknown to the other\\naborigines of North America. While the In-\\ndian tribes, ignorant of almost all the arts,\\nroamed over the prairie or through the forest,\\nwith the loosest social organization, the Mexi-\\ncans built cities, temples and palaces, held courts\\n*J. G. Kohl, Kitschi-Gami, i. 321 ff. Also Schoolcraft,\\nThe Indian and His Wigwam, New York, 1848, p. 204,\\nquoted by Andree.\\n(429)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0467.jp2"}, "468": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nof law, drilled armies and practised many of the\\narts of civilization. They improved the rude\\npicture-writing of the Indian tribes so much as\\nto be able to use it for the preservation of their\\nhistory, setting down at least names, dates and\\nplaces accompanied by pictures that would en-\\nable the historian to recall the events which they\\nportrayed. From these picture-writings, which\\nLord Kingsborough spent a fortune in engrav-\\ning and pubHshing under the belief that the Mex-\\nicans represented the Ten Tribes of Israel, we\\nderive for the most part our knowledge of their\\ntraditions of the Flood. I will give some of the\\nmore important of these traditions first, and will\\nthen discuss their genuineness. First it should\\nbe said that the Mexicans, like the Hindus and\\nthe Aryan nations generally, divide the history of\\nthe world into four epochs, each ending in a\\nworld-catastrophe. The first age is the Age of\\nGiants, who were destroyed by hunger or by\\nearthquakes. At the end of the second age the\\nworld was destroyed by a fire. At the end of the\\nthird age the world was destroyed by a hurricane.\\nThe fourth age, which was the Age of Water,\\nended with the great Flood. In all the Flood\\nstories current among the different nations of\\nMexico, there is some hero like Noah who\\nwas saved with his wife in a vessel, and who after-\\nward continued the propagation of the race.\\nOne of the commonest of these Flood legends is\\nthat associated with the hero Coxcox, which\\nattracted the attention of Alexander von Hum-\\nboldt.f\\nAntiquities of Mexico, London, 1831-1848.\\nf Sites des Cordilleras, etc., Paris, 1869, pp. 338-419.\\n(430)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0468.jp2"}, "469": {"fulltext": "Genuineness op Mexican Traditions\\nAt the time of the Age of Water (Atonaitiuh) a great\\nflood covered the whole earth, and men were turned into\\nfishes. Only one man and one woman escaped by conceal-\\ning themselves in the hollow stem of a cypress. The man\\nwas Coxcox, his wife was called Xochequetzal. When the\\nwaters had somewhat abated, they landed their ship on the\\npeak of Mount Colhuacan. There they multiplied and\\ngathered their children around them, but they were all\\nborn dumb. Then a dove came, gave them tongues and\\ninnumerable languages.* Only fifteen of the descendants\\nof Coxcox, who later became heads of families, spoke\\nthe same language, or could understand each other. From\\nthese fifteen descended the Toltecs, the Aztecs, and the\\nAcolhaus.\\n-In Michoucan a tradition is preserved in which\\nthe name of the rescued man is Tizpi. He not\\nonly saved his wife, but, having a large vessel, he\\nalso placed in it his children, different animals and\\nprovisions. As the waters receded he sent out a\\nvulture to look for earth and to bring him word\\nof the dry land. But the vulture sated itself on\\nthe corpses and did not return. Tizpi then sent\\nout other birds, among them the humming bird.\\nWhen the sun began to shine and the earth grew\\ngreen again, Tizpi saw that his ship lay on the\\nmount of Colhuacan, and disembarked, f\\nIf these two narratives could be proved to be\\nof genuinely native origin, as Lenormant sup-\\nposed, J if they were correct translations of Mex-\\nican picture-writing, made before the advent of\\nthe Spanish, they would profoundly change our\\npresent ideas of the Flood, of Mexican civiliza-\\ntion and of the history of the human race gen-\\nEvidently a confusion of Noah s dove with the story of the\\nTower of Babel.\\nf Both these traditions related by Alexander von Humboldt,\\nVues des Cordilleres, vol. ii., p. 177 ff., Eng. trans., 1814.\\nAlso Clavigero, Storia Antica del Messico, vol. iii., p. 151.\\nX Essai de Berose, p. 283.\\n(43^)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0469.jp2"}, "470": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nerally. For if these writings were genuine we\\nshould have to suppose that the main features of\\nthe Bibhcal Flood story were known to the most\\ndiverse nations of the earth. That would be a\\ngood deal for a humming bird to accomplish.\\nBut, I repeat, the series of coincidences between\\nthe Mexican Flood myths (of which I have given\\nonly two versions) and our story, could not have\\narisen except from a common tradition or from\\ndirect borrowing. Lord Kingsborough had\\nmore reason than most enthusiasts for thinking\\nhe had discovered at last the long-lost Ten Tribes.\\nAs long as the authenticity and correctness of the\\nMexican narratives were entertained, the Mexi-\\ncan Flood myths, of which there are other equally\\nstriking versions, proved a stumbling stone to a\\nrational comprehension of the Flood. That po-\\nsition, however, is no longer maintained by those\\nwho have most carefully examined the subject.*\\nIt has been pointed out by Bancroft f that none\\nof the earliest Spanish writers who concern\\nthemselves with Mexican mythology at the time\\nof the conquest describe Flood legends, which\\nis a suspicious circumstance. Bancroft also as-\\nserts, on the word of Don Jose Fernando Rami-\\nrez, that the interpretations of the picture-writ-\\nings collected by von Humboldt, Clavigero and\\nKingsborough are incorrect, and that they have\\nbeen falsely translated. There is one docu-\\nmentary account of the Mexican Flood myth\\nwhose interpretation does not appear to be ques-\\ntioned, that is the celebrated Codex Chimalpo-\\npoca. Unfortunately, it is not old enough to be\\n*Girard de Rialle, I.a Mythologie comparee, i. 352 ff.\\nf Native Races of the Pacific States, iii. p. 68.\\n(432)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0470.jp2"}, "471": {"fulltext": "Codex Chimalpopoca\\nfree from Christian influence, for though com-\\nposed in the Aztec language, it is written in\\nSpanish characters. It is supposed to have been\\nreduced to writing by an anonymous native\\nauthor and was copied by IxtUlxochitl and pub-\\nHshed in part by Abbe Brasseur de Bourbourg.*\\nThis is de Bourbourg s translation\\nWhen the age Nahui-atl (the Fourth Age of Water)\\ncame, four hundred years elapsed: then came two hundred\\nyears more, then seventy-six years. Then human beings\\nwere destroyed, they were drowned and turned into fish.\\nThe sky approached the water. On a single day everything\\nwas destroyed, and the day, Mahui Xochitl, or Four\\nFlowers, devoured all there was of our flesh. And this\\nyear was that of Ce-Calli, or One House. And on the\\nfirst day, Nahui-Atl, everything was lost. The mountains\\nthemselves were destroyed in the water, and the waters re-\\nmained calm for fifty-two springtides. Yet, toward the end\\nof the year (the god) Titlacahuan warned a certain Nata,\\nand his wife Nena, saying, Make no wine (i.e., agave,\\npulque), but hollow out a great cypress and get into it,\\nand when in the month Tocoztli the water begins to ap-\\nproach the sky They got in, and as Titlacahuan\\nshut the door after them, he said to them, Thou shalt eat\\nbut a single ear of corn, and thy wife one also. But as\\nsoon as they were ready they wished to get out, for the\\nwaters were quiet and their tree trunk no longer moved.\\nAnd as they opened it they saw the fishes. Then they\\nmade a fire by rubbing pieces of wood together. The gods\\nCitlalliuicue and Citlallatonac, who looked down, said:\\nO, divine lord, what is this fire down there? Why\\ndo they thus smoke the sky? Then Titlacahuan de-\\nscended and began to scold, saying: Who has made this\\nfire here? And he seized the fishes and moulded their\\ntails, and shaped their heads and they were made into dogs\\n(Chichime, a satire aimed at the Chichimecs or barbarians\\nof the north).-!*\\nThis story, also, which Lenormant regarded as\\nJ. C. Brasseur de Bourbourg, Histoire des nations civili-\\nse es du Mexique, Paris, 1857. Episode of flood in Appendix,\\np. 425.\\nf Lenormant, Begin, of Hist., 462, 463 Andree, 107, 108.\\n28 (433)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0471.jp2"}, "472": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nof purely aboriginal character, in the parts\\nthat remind us of Genesis, namely, the warning of\\nthe god, the command to build a ship, etc., bears\\nunmistakably a Biblical imprint. The single\\nstatement that Titlacahuan shut the door after\\nthem is enough to prove the Bibhcal origin of\\nthe story. For not only are those words the di-\\nrect echo of Genesis, but they are wholly out of\\nplace in this narrative. What sort of door would\\na canoe made out of a hollow cypress be likely to\\nhave? We are therefore led to the conclusion\\nthat all those features in the Mexican Flood\\nmyths which strikingly remind us of Genesis are\\nthe result of Christian influence after the Spanish\\ninvasion. What makes this probable is the fact\\nthat none of these traditions, in their present\\nform, is older than the conquest. I by no means\\nwish to imply, however, that the Mexicans had\\nno native Flood myths on the contrary, all their\\nFlood traditions which I have seen bear distinct\\nmarks of originaHty. I ascribe to Christian in-\\nfluence only those features which are obviously\\ntaken from Genesis, and which, if admitted to be\\nof native origin, would cause us to modify our\\nwhole conception of human history. Making\\nthese deductions, the Mexican Flood stories are\\nreally no more remarkable than those we have\\ndiscovered in many other parts of the world, and\\nthey cannot fairly be urged as a proof of the\\nAsiatic origin of Mexican culture, whatever sup-\\nport may be found for that view on other\\ngrounds. There are now only two other groups\\nof tradition which I wish to mention, and then\\nwe shall have touched at least on the most im-\\nportant of the Flood legends of the earth. They\\n(434)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0472.jp2"}, "473": {"fulltext": "POPOL VUH\\nare the traditions of Guatemala in Central Amer-\\nica and those of Peru.\\nThe Flood legends of Guatemala are impor-\\ntant, not only on account of the comparatively\\nhigh civilization and intelligence of its people, but\\nbecause they are recorded in native writing of\\nsome antiquity. The document to which I allude\\nis called Popol Vuh (Book of the People). It was\\nwritten in the Quiche language, by an unknown\\nwriter, shortly after the introduction of Chris-\\ntianity into Guatemala, and was translated into\\nSpanish by the Dominican Ximenes, at the be-\\nginning of the eighteenth century.* According\\nto Popol Vuh, after the gods had created animals\\nthey became discontented, because they could\\nneither speak nor honor their makers. Accord-\\ningly the gods next created men out of clay.\\nThese men also were imperfect, because they\\ncould neither turn their heads, speak, nor under-\\nstand anything. So the gods destroyed their im-\\nperfect work in a flood. Then followed a second\\ncreation of human beings, in which a man was\\nmade of wood and a woman of gum or rosin.\\nThe second race was better than the first, but in\\nits nature very animal. Men spoke, but in an ut-\\nterly incomprehensible manner, and they showed\\nno gratitude to the gods. Then Hurricane, the\\nheart of Heaven, let burning pitch fall on the\\nearth, and an earthquake came, through which\\nall living men, with few exceptions, were de-\\nstroyed. The few who were spared were turned\\nFirst publication of the Spanish text, by Karl Scherzer, Wien,\\n1857. The original text with French translation by Brasseur de\\nBourbourg, Popol Vuh, Le livre sacre et les mythes\\ndes Quiches, Paris, 1861. See also Stoll, Zur Ethnographic\\nder Republik Guatemala, Zurich, 1884, quoted by Andree.\\n(435)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0473.jp2"}, "474": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ninto apes. At last the gods formed a third race\\nof men out of white and yellow maize, who were\\nso perfect that the gods themselves were afraid of\\nthem. The gods therefore took away some of\\ntheir good qualities, and so they became normal\\nmen, from whom the Quiches descended.*\\nThis story, so far as one can see, is absolutely\\noriginal. There is nothing in it suggestive of\\nGenesis.\\nThe Peruvians, as is well known, were among\\nthe most cultured of American aborigines. What\\nis strange is that their civihzation appears to have\\nnothing in common with the civilization of Mex-\\nico.f In spite of Lenormant s assertion to the\\ncontrary,$ Peru possesses several genuine Flood\\nstories, one of which is as follows: It is stated\\nthat the whole surface of the earth was altered\\nby a great overflow of water, while the sun for\\nfive days was concealed. All living beings were\\nannihilated, except one shepherd, his wife and\\nflock. For several days before the flood began\\nthe shepherd noticed that his llamas were sad,\\nand that all night long they kept their eyes fixed\\non the course of the stars. Very much surprised,\\nhe asked the gentle animals what the meaning of\\nit was, and why they fixed their glance on a\\ngroup of six stars which seemed to be a sign to\\nthem. The llamas informed him that the earth\\nwas about to be destroyed by a flood, and that if\\nQuoted from Scherzer and de Bourbourg-.\\nf The culture of Peru is so independent (of Mexico) that no\\ntraces of mutual influence have been discovered. Dr. Edmund\\nBuckley, in his provokingly brief sketch of American religions in\\nChantepie de la Saussaye s Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte,\\nLeipzig, 1897, i. 32.\\n1(. Beginning s of History, 434.\\n(436)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0474.jp2"}, "475": {"fulltext": "Peruvian Flood Tradition\\nhe wished to save himself he must fly with his\\nfamily and flock to the top of the highest moun-\\ntain of the neighborhood. He did so, and\\nclimbed to the summit of Mount Ancasmarca,\\nwhere a multitude of other animals were already\\nassembled. Scarcely had he attained the moun-\\ntain when the sea left its banks and with a fright-\\nful roar broke over the land. As now the waters\\nrose higher and higher, flooding plains and val-\\nleys, the mountain rose with them and swam\\nlike a ship on the waves. This lasted five days,\\nwhile the sun remained hidden and the earth\\nveiled in darkness. On the fifth day, however,\\nthe waters began to diminish, and the earth was\\npeopled anew by the descendants of the shep-\\nherd.*\\nThis story appears to be quite original. With\\nthe exception of two mythical incidents, the float-\\ning of the mountain and the renewal of the earth\\nby the descendants of the shepherd, it is quite an\\naccurate account of an inundation caused by\\nearthquake. The brief duration of the flood, the\\nwarning of the llamas, the obscuration of the sun,\\nand even the floating of the mountain, all point to\\na serious seismic disturbance. Twice in little\\nmore than a century the coast of Peru has been\\nvisited by fearful earthquakes (1746 and 1868).\\nGigantic waves were raised, by which the coast\\nwas inundated, harbors destroyed and cities com-\\npletely overwhelmed. This story is plainly based\\non the recollection of a catastrophe in ancient\\ntimes similar to the earthquake of 1746, when\\nLima was destroyed.\\nBancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, v. 15. Also\\nBrasseur de Bourbourg in Landa, Relacion, xxx.\\n(437)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0475.jp2"}, "476": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Twenty\\nOrigin of Flood Myths of Mankind\\nIN our last chapter we discussed the diffusion of\\nthe Flood myth. We saw that, although it is\\none of the most widely disseminated beliefs of\\nmankind, it is not a universal tradition, as many\\npersons have supposed. Whole countries and\\neven continents have either no Flood stories or\\nelse few and adopted legends. Now that we have\\ndefinitely renounced belief in a universal destruc-\\ntion of the world by water, and with it the be-\\nlief that all these traditions rest on the recollec-\\ntion of a common catastrophe, it becomes more\\nthan ever incumbent on us to explain them. I\\napproach this task, however, with a heavy heart.\\n(Dne need only glance at the various hypotheses\\nadvanced to account for the legends of the Flood\\nto be assured that here is a labyrinth of myth,\\nhistory and speculation, through which as yet\\nthe guiding thread fails. If we think that this\\nlabyrinth can be taken by storm we fail com-\\npletely to comprehend its intricacy. To build\\nup a glittering theory based on a few catch-\\nwords to which all human belief is made to bend,\\nis not much better. You may remember Balzac s\\ndefinition of German scholarship. A German\\nscholar, says Balzac, is a man who finds a lit-\\ntle hole in the ground which he proceeds to con-\\n(438)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0476.jp2"}, "477": {"fulltext": "D\\nATA\\nvert into an abyss, at the bottom of which is to be\\nfound not truth, but one German. At the outset\\nof my task a solemn warning rises before me in\\nthe monumental work of Franz von Schwarz,*\\nupon which he cogitated twelve years before\\nreducing it to writing. In this vast piece of\\nlabor Schwarz attempts to account for the migra-\\ntions of the whole human family in ancient and\\nmodern times by their Flood traditions. What-\\never ethnological importance this work may pos-\\nsess, it is of no value as a treatise on the Flood\\ntradition, because it rests on a false hypothesis,\\nnamely, that all Flood traditions come from the\\ncommon recollection of a catastrophe which oc-\\ncurred in Turkestan f in pre-historic times. Such\\nattempts will continue to be made as long as geol-\\nogists and ethnologists confine themselves ex-\\nclusively to the physical aspect of the Flood\\ntradition; but those who have grasped the real\\nconditions of the problem may disregard works\\nof this order.\\nThe data on which we have to reason are as\\nfollows\\n1. The existence of the Flood story among the\\nmost diverse races in ancient and modern times.\\n2. The fact that no universal deluge has oc-\\ncurred.\\n3. The fact that if a wide-spread destruction of\\nthe earth by water had occurred in primitive\\ntimes, before the so-called dispersion of the na-\\ntions, such an event would not now be remem-\\nbered by lower races whose history goes back\\nonly a few generations.\\nSintfluth und Volkerwanderungen, Stuttgart, 1894.\\nfOp. cit., 5, 6, 7.\\n(439)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0477.jp2"}, "478": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n4. The fact that the Egyptians and Chinese, the\\nnations which have most carefully preserved\\ntheir ancient history, have no true Flood story.\\n5. Certain curious resemblances in the Flood\\nlegends of remote peoples between which no his-\\ntorical connection can be established.\\nFrom this last point, which is the most impor-\\ntant for our purpose, I will set out. Modern\\nscience, whose business it is to trace separate\\nevents to a general law, will suspect that where\\nso many traditions have arisen independently\\nthey are to be referred to one cause. Since no\\none prevailing, external cause is to be looked for\\namong people so widely separated in time and\\nspace as the Babylonians, Australians, Eskimos\\nand Peruvians, we must look for an internal cause,\\nthe minds of men at a certain stage of their devel-\\nopment being apt to reason on the phenomena of\\nnature in much the same way. In short, I sup-\\npose that the explanation of the innumerable\\nFlood legends most popular among students of\\nhuman tradition is that they are all myths arising\\nfrom the attempts of man to explain regularly re-\\ncurring phenomena of nature. Even so conserva-\\ntive a scholar as Max Miiller seems to adopt this\\nview when he says There are certain mytho-\\nlogical ideas, such as the deluge, for instance,\\nwhich by their recurrence among many and\\nwidely separated nations, show that they did not\\narise from some isolated historical fact, as even\\nHuxley seemed to imagine, but that they ex-\\npressed physical phenomena which occur and\\nrecur every year and all over the globe.\\nContributions to the Science of Mythology, 2 vols., Long-\\nmans, Green Co., 1897, vol. i., p. 220.\\n(440)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0478.jp2"}, "479": {"fulltext": "Ether-Myth Theory\\nThis theory has certainly found able advo-\\ncates, although as yet no adequate statement.\\nOne of the first writers on anthropology to re-\\nsolve the Flood story into a mere nature-myth\\nwas Schirren in his Wanderungen der Neusee-\\nlander. Schirren regards the Flood stories,\\nespecially those of New Zealand and other isl-\\nands of the Pacific, as an example of the all-\\nrevealing sun-myth. The flood of waters which\\noverwhelms the earth, is the darkness that fills\\nthe sky, especially on cloudy days and nights,\\nfrom which the sun escapes in his boat and in due\\ntime reappears. Since many of Schirren s views\\nare now antiquated, I shall not take the time to\\ndiscuss them, especially as a more acceptable\\nform of his myth theory has been presented by\\nGerland in Waitz s great anthropology.f Ger-\\nland transforms the sun-myth into what he calls\\nan ether-myth. The construction of this\\nmyth is as follows: The blue vault of heaven is\\nconceived as a great sea in which the constella-\\ntions appear to rise as mountains, islands and\\nmythical monsters. The sun, moon and stars are\\nconceived as canoes swimming in the flood, or as\\na man and his wife and children escaping from the\\nthick clouds, darkness, etc., that blot out the sky.\\nIt is supposed that from this familiar picture in\\nthe heavens the idea of a flood on earth was sug-\\ngested, and that, just as the heavens are covered\\nwith clouds, so the earth was covered with water\\nand as sun, moon and stars escape and reappear,\\nso some chosen man with his wife and children\\nmade his escape from the waters of a flood. It is\\n*Riga, 1856.\\nf Anthropologie der Naturvolker, 6 vols., Leipzig-, 1872.\\n(441)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0479.jp2"}, "480": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\npointed out that such phenomena in the sky are\\npresented constantly all over the world, and that\\nto men of a certain stage of culture they may very\\nwell suggest the same thing, namely, a universal\\nflood in which only a few persons escape death.\\nThe last proposition, however, is by no means\\nself-evident. On the contrary, it would be a\\nmere piece of unscientific dogmatism to assert\\nthat all savage, barbarous, and semi-civilized\\nraces regarded the sky as a sea, and the sun,\\nmoon and stars as a man with his wife and chil-\\ndren escaping in boats. If even one nation en-\\ntertained this belief it ought to be shown that this\\nnation transferred its conception of a flood in the\\nsky to that of a flood on earth. And even if it\\ncould be proved that one people actually made\\nthis transference, it would not follow that to all\\nother peoples so strange an idea would occur.\\nTherefore, unless we are to take refuge in vapid\\ntheories, the case is one in which plain and con-\\nvincing evidence ought to be afforded, and to\\nthis evidence I now pass. The two best state-\\nments that I know of the ether-myth as an ex-\\nplanation of the flood legend, are Gerland s in\\nWaitz Anthropologic and Canon Cheyne s\\nin the article Deluge in the Encyclopaedia\\nBritannica and in the new Encyclopaedia Bib-\\nlica. Gerland confines his argument to the\\ngroup of islands loosely called Polynesia, while\\nCanon Cheyne s articles, though necessarily\\nbrief, are more general in their application. As\\nCheyne evidently depends on Gerland a good\\ndeal, and as he expressly states that the most\\nplausible arguments for the celestial deluge\\ntheory are derived from the Polynesian mythol-\\n(442)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0480.jp2"}, "481": {"fulltext": "Criticism of Gerland s Argument\\nogy, I shall glance at Gerland first. Gerland\\nbegins his discussion by remarking that the in-\\nhabitants of Polynesia called the Milky Way a\\nlong, blue, cloud-eating whale (which Foster,\\nhowever, translates sail So, Gerland con-\\ntinues, we have here the conception of the sky\\nas a sea, as in so many other places. Further, one\\nmay mention the Hawaiian myth of Hiralii, ac-\\ncording to which the moon caused a powerful\\noverflow. According to all this, it would not\\nbe too bold if we derived from this source all\\nflood myths, which in Polynesia are innumerable,\\nand characterizing them as myths which refer to\\nthe vault of heaven, not to the earth. f\\nThis may not be too bold for Gerland, who has\\nan immense store of Polynesian lore at command,\\nbut it appears to be altogether too bold a de-\\nduction from any facts he has as yet vouchsafed\\nto communicate. Suppose the Polynesians do\\nregard the Milky Way as a whale, and even that\\nthe New Zealanders, as Gerland asserts, saw in\\none of the constellations a full-rigged ship the\\nBabylonians saw in the constellations a virgin and\\na crab, but it does not follow that they regarded\\nthe sky as a girl s school or a crab pond. Even\\ngranting that the cloud-eating whale proves the\\nbelief that the sky is a sea, it does not follow from\\nthis that the earth is visited by a flood, nor does\\nthe Hawaiian tradition that the moon caused a\\npowerful overflow prove anything in itself be-\\nyond the fact that the moon influences the tides.\\nGerland, however, after criticising Schirren for\\nreferring the Flood stories too exclusively to the\\n*Encyc. Brit., vol. vii., p. 57.\\nf Waitz, op. cit., vol. vi., pp. 268-273.\\n(443)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0481.jp2"}, "482": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nmyth of the setting sun, comments on a few Poly-\\nnesian Flood legends. He brings forward only\\ntwo or three incidents which have any bearing\\non his theory. He cites the narrative of the fish-\\nerman who caught the sea-god by the hair, and\\ncalls attention to the fact that the little island,\\nToa-Marama, only two feet high, means moon-\\ntree. This at least is a connection between the\\nflood and the moon, but it is very indirect. Ger-\\nland sees in this moon-tree a counterpart of\\nthe Yggdrasil, or world-tree of Germanic myth-\\nology, which had its roots in Hell and its branches\\nin Heaven. This may well be, as the myth of the\\nworld-tree is found all through the Pacific isl-\\nands from Borneo to New Zealand.* In the\\nstory, however, nothing is said about the fisher-\\nman climbing up to the moon, and Toa-Marama\\nis not a mythical spot, but a small island to the\\neast of Raiatea. Further than this, we can prove\\nconclusively that the moon-tree as a means of\\nescape has at present nothing to do with the\\nstory of the Flood. For, as Ellis testifies, when\\nthe inhabitants are asked why such a low-lying\\nisland was not submerged, they know not what\\nto say, but point to the corals and mussels em-\\nbedded high on the mountains as a proof that\\nthe Flood was there.f\\nGerland s second example is taken from a\\nFlood story of Tahiti, and is based on the cir-\\ncumstance that when a man and his wife are flee-\\ning from a flood, the husband wishes to take ref-\\nuge on a mountain called Owfena. The wife ob-\\njects, and says No, we, too, on the mount round\\nTylor, Early History of Mankind, p. 354.\\nf Ellis, Polynesian Researches, ii. p. 58, ist ed.\\n(444)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0482.jp2"}, "483": {"fulltext": "Ether-Myth Not Well Founded\\nas a breast, on Pito-Hiti, which ElHs translates\\nalone, and which Gerland regards as a myth-\\nical mountain. I confess I can see little to the\\npoint in this allusion. The story goes on to say\\nthat after the subsidence of the waters, the man\\nand his wife were threatened by a new danger\\nfrom falling stones and trees which had been\\nthrown high in the air. This would lead one to\\nsuspect a volcanic eruption.\\nFrom these slender premises Gerland con-\\ncludes that to explain these sagas of the Flood\\none must think of rain clouds covering the heav-\\nen with their dark water, bringing sun, moon\\nand stars into greatest danger. Unfortunately\\nfor this statement, EUis, that thorough observer\\nof all things Polynesian, on whom Gerland him-\\nself frequently depends, expressly asserts, I\\nhave frequently conversed with people on the\\nsubject [of the flood], both in the northern and\\nthe southern groups, but never could learn that\\nthey have any account of the windows of heaven\\nbeing opened or the rain having descended. f\\nIt appears to me that an extensive idea was never\\nreared on a slighter foundation of fact. It\\nmay very well be that more pertinent facts are\\nforthcoming, but certainly without a good deal\\nof encouragement, one would hardly be tempted\\nto carry this sort of thing much further. Ger-\\nland confined his observations and theories to\\nthe Polynesian Islands. He invited other more\\nambitious scholars, however, to apply his ether-\\nmyth theory to all other Flood traditions. This\\ninvitation Canon Cheyne accepts in his article on\\n*0p. cit., vi. 272, 273,\\nf Op. cit., i. p. 394, 2d ed., in 4 vols., London, 1831.\\n(445)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0483.jp2"}, "484": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThe Deluge in the Encyclopsedia Britannica.\\nIn itself this circumstance should lead us to treat\\nthe theory with respect. I fully share the ad-\\nmiration of the English-speaking world for our\\ngreatest living Old Testament scholar and critic.\\nIn this case, however, we are concerned not with\\nadmiration for men s persons, but with facts.\\nDoes Canon Cheyne in his brief but comprehen-\\nsive article adduce any new facts in support of\\nGerland s theory of the ether-myth, which he un-\\nhesitatingly accepts? It is true. Canon Cheyne\\nrather stops the mouth of the adversary by his\\ndefinition of a Deluge, by which, he says, I\\nmean to exclude the theory which would account\\nfor Deluge stories as exaggerations of local in-\\nundations, and he states the ether-myth theory\\nwith a confidence that might well cause a layman\\nto hesitate in attacking it. This, however, I am\\nnot doing. I repeat, I should be perfectly will-\\ning to accept that theory on sufficient grounds,\\nby which I mean a convincing evidence of\\npertinent facts. I do not regard it as evi-\\ndence merely to say, It is agreed by my-\\nthologists that the exclusive subjects of really\\nprimitive traditional stories are frequently recur-\\nring natural phenomena. When we come to\\nmatters of fact we find the evidence very slender,\\nand not always unimpeachable. Canon Cheyne\\nrepeats Gerland s arguments on the Polynesian\\nmyths without adding anything new to them.\\nThen he passes to the Babylonian Flood story, on\\nwhich his criticisms do not appear to be very\\nhappy, although it is to be remembered that his\\narticle was written before 1878. Relying on the\\nnot always sate guidance of M. Lenormant and\\n(446)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0484.jp2"}, "485": {"fulltext": "Cheyne s Criticisms\\nDr. A. H. Sayce, Canon Cheyne assumes that the\\nideographic symbol for Sit-napistim (or Par-\\nnapistim), which he calls Tamzi, but which is\\nusually written Ud-zi,* or Ut,t means Sun-of-\\nLife. Jensen, however, questions this on the\\nground that Ut is not preceded by the determina-\\ntive of the sun, and that such a name for Sit-\\nnapistim would be meaningless. The father of\\nSit-napistim, Ubara-Tutu, or Kidin-Marduk,\\nCheyne translates Splendor-of-Sunset, but\\naccording to Schrader,J Jastrow,\u00c2\u00a7 and others, it\\nmeans only servant, or client, of Tutu, who\\nis identified with Marduk. So most of Canon\\nCheyne s other remarks on this story fall to the\\nground. The Flood is a rain flood, and the\\nfather of the rain (Job, xxxviii. 28) is the ce-\\nlestial ocean, which in the original myth must\\nhave been itself the Deluge, and the ship is like\\nthat in which the Egyptian sun-god voyages in\\nthe sea of ether. The mountain on which the sur-\\nvivors come to land was originally (as in Poly-\\nnesia) the great mythic mountain which\\njoins the earth to the sky and serves as an axis\\nto the celestial vault. There is little truth in\\nthese statements. The Flood, as I shall soon\\nshow, was not caused by rain alone. Professor\\nCheyne may have knowledge of the ship in which\\nthe Egyptian sun-god travelled which I do not\\npossess, but I never heard that he sailed the sky\\nin a house-boat six stories high with compart-\\nments. Lastly, whatever may have been Berosus\\nconception of the landing place of the ark, the\\nversion contained in Izdubar speaks of Mt. Nisir,\\n*Schrader, K. A. T., p. 65. f Jensen, Cos. der Bab., 384.\\nX Schrader, K. A. T., p. 67. Relig-. of Bab., p. 488.\\n(447)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0485.jp2"}, "486": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nor rather a mountain in the land of Nisir. The\\nmountain of Nisir, far from being the mythical\\nMountain of the East, which unites the earth to\\nthe sky, was a range of very moderate height,\\neast of the Tigris, beyond the Lower Zab, in lati-\\ntude 35 \u00c2\u00b0-36\u00c2\u00b0, as we learn from an inscription of\\nAshurnasirbal, who tells us how he marched\\nwith an army to the land of Nisir, fought with the\\ninhabitants, and pursued them into these very\\nmountains.*\\nThe only other piece of evidence that Canon\\nCheyne mentions is the fish in the Hindu version\\nof the Flood contained in the Mahabharata,\\nwhose horn, he thinks, reminds us of other\\nhorned deities whose solar origin is acknowl-\\nedged. In reply to this it may be said that if,\\nas Canon Cheyne believes, this Hindu story is of\\nBabylonian origin, the fish-god is not a solar\\ndeity, but Ea, the god of the deep, who is usually\\nrepresented in the form of a fish. We also notice\\nin the various Hindu recensions of the story how\\nthe horn of this fish grows. From an ordinary\\nhorned fish in the Satapatha Brahmana it be-\\ncomes, in the Bhagavata Purana,t a golden fish\\nwith a horn a million yojanas long. In this ver-\\nsion the fish begins to look like the sun, but we\\nmust remember that this is the latest form of the\\nHindu tradition. To this I will only add that if\\nthe Babylonian Flood story had been based on a\\nsolar myth, we might have expected a solar deity,\\nrather than Sit-napistim, to be the hero of it. I\\nshould not have commented on views presented\\n*Schrader, K. A. T., p. 75, and Cuneiform Inscriptions of\\nWest. Asia, vol. i. pi. 20.\\nf Muir s Orig. Sanskt. Texts, i. p. 210.\\n(448)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0486.jp2"}, "487": {"fulltext": "Ether-Myth Theory Untenable\\nso long ago were it not that they stand in the\\nEncyclopaedia Britannica, and that they are not\\nwithdrawn in Cheyne s article in the Encyclopae-\\ndia Biblica. In his new article Canon Cheyne\\nreiterates Gerland s theory, though apparently\\nhe tries to combine the ether-myth with Dr.\\nBrinton s theory of the Four Ages of the world.\\nHe calls attention to the fact that in the poem of\\nIzdubar, only Shamash, the sun-god, can cross\\nthe sea in which Hes the Island of the Blessed.\\nAs the sea is plainly the mythical ocean which\\nsurrounds the world, this in itself is not surpris-\\ning; nor did Sit-napistim make the voyage in his\\nship. He was supernaturally translated. Canon\\nCheyne also quotes from Brinton examples of\\nFlood legends of the New World in which birds\\nand a muskrat assist in rebuilding the earth.\\nThis, however, has nothing to do with the ether-\\nmyth.\\nFor the present, therefore, I lay this explana-\\ntion aside. It is by no means improbable that the\\nview of the heavens described by Gerland con-\\ntributed to the formation of Flood legends. We\\nknow that many nations did regard the sky as a\\nsea, and it is not impossible that the sight of the\\nluminaries overwhelmed by clouds may have sug-\\ngested the overwhelming of the earth by water.\\nIt is also possible that more than one Flood story\\nbears evidence of solar origin, and Canon Cheyne\\nhas overlooked the best example of all; namely,\\nthe Algonquin hero Manabozho, who is plainly a\\nsolar deity. But to conclude from such slight\\nand questionable evidence as Gerland and Cheyne\\nofifer, that all Flood stories are derived from this\\none source is, to say the least, premature.\\n29 (44Q)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0487.jp2"}, "488": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nWithin the past year another mythological ex-\\nplanation of the Flood legend has been presented\\nby Usener,* which gains somewhat the same goal\\nby a different route. Usener devotes himself\\nprimarily to the Flood traditions of Greece.\\nWhatever may be thought of the success of his\\nattempt to account for the Flood myth, no one\\nwill deny that he has executed a beautiful piece of\\nwork, and I think most of his readers will be sur-\\nprised to learn the volume and variety of the\\nGreek traditions of the Flood. The very copious-\\nness of Usener s illustrations, for which he seems\\nto have exhausted classical mythology, renders it\\nimpossible for me to do justice to his presenta-\\ntion, and I must confine myself strictly to his\\nmain contention. Usener, while not able to dis-\\ncover evidences of the Flood tradition in Greek\\nliterature earlier than about 600 B.C., regards\\nthe legend not as a Semitic loan but as indige-\\nnous to Greece. He explains the difficulty\\nof its late appearance by supposing that it was\\nlong cherished by the common people in out-of-\\nthe-way places before it became a theme of litera-\\nture. This, however, hardly explains the igno-\\nrance of Hesiod, that master of folk lore, or the\\nfact that the Flood story is the theme of no im-\\nportant Greek poem. Usener begins his argu-\\nment by an elaborate study of the name of Deu-\\ncalion {^evnaXioDv, or ^evnaXoz), which may be\\ndivided thus, Aev-xaXo^. The first portion of the\\nword he takes to be Asv?, the Spartan and Boeo-\\ntian form of Zeviy and the second portion, JiaXo?,\\nhe regards as an old Greek diminutive corre-\\nDie Sintfluthsagen, untersucht von Hermann Usener,\\nBonn, 1899.\\n(450)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0488.jp2"}, "489": {"fulltext": "GrREEK Legends of Divine Children\\nsponding to the Latin cuius. Deucalion, then, is\\nHttle Zeus, just as Herakles is Httle hero. Hera-\\nkles is an example of a man who, by the develop-\\nment of perfect strength worthily employed in\\nlife, after death was raised to the gods. Deuca-\\nlion, who was saved from the Flood in an ark, is\\nlittle Zeus (das Gotterknablein), and is to be com-\\npared with the infant Zeus of Crete. He is a god\\nwho has sunk to the rank of a hero, only to be\\nexalted again among the gods. His escape from\\nthe Flood in an ark is on a par with numerous\\nGreek stories which relate how certain divine\\nchildren were exposed to the sea in chests, from\\nwhich they were afterward rescued.\\nPerhaps the most celebrated of these narra-\\ntives is the story of Perseus. Akresios, King of\\nArgos, having been warned by an oracle that his\\ndaughter Danae would give birth to a son who\\nwould cause his death, confined Danae in a sub-\\nterranean chamber fitted with brazen plates.\\nZeus, however, passed through the roof of this\\nvault in a shower of golden rain. From the union\\nof Zeus and Danae Perseus was born, and re-\\nmained concealed with his mother until he was\\nthree or four years old. When Akresios became\\naware of Perseus existence he caused Danae and\\nher child to be placed in a chest and the chest to\\nbe thrown into the sea, where it drifted to the\\nrocky island of Seriphos. Perseus became a\\ngreat hero; in fact, he is a solar deity.\\nQuite similar is the story of Auge, who bore\\nTelephos to Herakles, in consequence of which\\nher father, Aleos, caused Auge and her child to\\nbe thrown into the sea in a chest. They were\\ndriven to the coast of Mysia, where the ruler of", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0489.jp2"}, "490": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthe land received them and made Auge his wife.\\nAuge, as her name impUes, was a Hght goddess.\\nOther heroes, Hke CEdipus and even the god\\nDionysos, underwent the same fate. They were\\nthrown into the sea in chests, from which they\\nwere rescued; they became great heroes, and\\nafterward were raised to the gods.\\nThis, then, is the nucleus of the Flood story, not\\nonly in Greece, but also elsewhere. A child who\\nis the offspring of a god, or who, Hke Deucalion,\\nis a god in the form of a hero, is exposed to the\\nsea and is saved in a chest, after which he assumes\\na place among the heavenly gods. That the new-\\nborn child is sometimes taken to heaven is shown\\nin the case of Dionysos. The voyage in the\\nchest, however, is not a voyage from one part of\\nthis world to another, but from this world to\\nanother world. Hence the necessity of the pilot\\nin the Flood story of Babylonia, and for the same\\nreason Xisuthros pilot was translated with him\\nto guide him to another world. At bottom the\\nFlood myth is the myth of the rising sun. The\\nchild exposed and tossed on the waters and after-\\nwards raised to the gods, is the young sun rising\\nout of the waves and mounting to heaven. Xisu-\\nthros is translated immediately after his depart-\\nure from the ark. Sit-napistim is taken to the\\nIsland of the Blessed, etc.\\nWhile I feel far from competent to discuss the\\nwealth of mythological material that Usener has\\ncollected, there are a few points in his argument\\nto which I may allude.\\nA great deal is made to depend on the\\netymological significance of Deucalion s name.\\nIt would ill become me to say that Usener is not\\n(452)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0490.jp2"}, "491": {"fulltext": "Usener s Theory Criticised\\nright, but a more natural derivation, together\\nwith a simpler explanation of Deucalion s con-\\nnection with the Flood, is suggested in Roscher s\\nLexicon, where Deucalion is derived from Ssvgd^\\nmoisten, and Pyrrha, from TTvppo?, the red earth.\\nAccording to this view, Deucalion was the per-\\nsonification of water and Pyrrha of the earth,\\nand from their union came the Hellenes. Use-\\nner s theory fails altogether to account for\\nPyrrha. It also seems a little forced to place Deu-\\ncalion s escape in the chest on a par with the es-\\ncape of Perseus, Telephos, Dionysos, CEdipus,\\netc., for these were all young children, while Deu-\\ncalion is an old man. Moreover, if the purpose\\nof Deucalion s Flood story is to show how a hero\\nis exalted to the gods (i.e., how the young sun\\nrises, for which an old man is not very suitable),\\nit is a little singular that nothing is said of the\\ntranslation of Deucalion. I think the strongest\\nconcrete example Usener can point to is the\\ntranslation of Xisuthros pilot. He, indeed, re-\\nminds us of the pilots of Greek mythology, Nau-\\nsithoos, Phaix, and Charon, the pilot to Hades\\nbut, on the other hand, Xisuthros left his vessel\\nbehind him, and no pilot of Deucalion is men-\\ntioned. On Usener s hypothesis that the\\nnucleus of the Flood is the exaltation of a hero to\\nheaven (the rising of the sun), the taking of the\\nanimals becomes sheer nonsense which Usener is\\nobliged to regard as an afterthought. f Charming\\nas Usener s treatment of the subject is, I do not\\nTo this it may be objected that the Hellenes did not spring\\nfrom the union of Deucalion and Pyrrha, but from stones.\\nf It is right to add that in the Greek Flood legend the taking\\nof the animals occurs only in the latest versions, and in versions\\nwhich plainly betray their Semitic origin.\\n(453)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0491.jp2"}, "492": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nbelieve that his deHcately wrought theory is\\nstrong enough to sustain the weight of the Flood\\ntraditions of mankind. The true parallel in Se-\\nmitic literature to the Greek children exposed in\\nchests, would seem to be the exposure in little\\narks of infants like Moses and Sargon.\\nVery much more terse, robust and striking\\nare the observations of the lamented Dr. Brinton,\\nthan whom few more profound students of prim-\\nitive manners and beliefs ever lived. Dr. Brinton\\nbegins his discussion by calling attention to the\\nnatural tendency of the human mind to account\\nfor the existence of things, and the inability of\\nprimitive peoples to imagine a creation out of\\nnothing. A simple primordial element and a\\ndeity to shape it, are the data of all early Creation\\nstories. As to the nature of that substance, all\\nnations agree that it was water which held all else\\nin solution, which covered and concealed all.\\nEarth, on the other hand, is conceived as already\\nin existence, although covered by waters, and the\\nfirst act of Creation consists in separating the\\nearth from the waters. This is as true of the He-\\nbrew and Babylonian cosmogonies as it is of the\\nCreation stories of the American Indians. The\\nmyth of Creation, then, is only a myth of con-\\nstruction. It arose, on the one side, from the im-\\npossibility of imagining a creation out of noth-\\ning, and on the other from the difficulty of con-\\nceiving the eternity of matter. But further, the\\nthought that the world has existed in its present\\nform from the beginning and that it will always\\nso exist, is oppressive to the human soul, so men\\nhave sought relief by breaking up the illimitable\\nage of the world into cycles or periods of time,\\n-I\\n(454)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0492.jp2"}, "493": {"fulltext": "Brinton s Theory\\neach followed by a world-catastrophe. Not\\nphysics, but metaphysics, is the exciting cause\\nof these beliefs in periodical convulsions of the\\nglobe. In effect, a myth of Creation is no-\\nwhere found among primitive nations. It seems\\nrepugnant to their reason. Dry land and animal\\nlife had a beginning, but not matter. A series\\nof constructions and demolitions may conveni-\\nently be supposed for these. Hence arose the\\nbelief in epochs of nature, elaborated by ancient\\nphilosophers into the Cycles of the Stoics, the\\nGreat Days of Brahm, long periods of time\\nrounded off by sweeping destructions, the cata-\\nclysms and ekpyrauses of the universe. Some\\nthought that in these all beings perished; others,\\nthat a few survived. The latter and more com-\\nmon view is the origin of the myth of the Deluge.\\nIn this I venture to think Dr. Brinton confuses\\ntwo well-defined classes of phenomena. The\\nFlood story, whatever its origin, is a free and\\nspontaneous creation of the people, a simple tale,\\nthe subject of an epic poem. Such conceptions,\\nhowever, as the Four World Ages with their cor-\\nresponding catastrophes, the Cycles of the\\nStoics and the Great Days of Brahm, are concep-\\ntions emanating from men who passed for phil-\\nosophers, which never became popular or ex-\\npanded into a genuinely mythical form. To de-\\nrive the Flood tradition from conceptions of this\\nkind which psychologically occur much later, is to\\nput the cart before the horse. This is easily seen in\\nthe case of Hesiod. The most popular statement\\nof the doctrine of the Four Ages is Hesiod s and\\nhe has not a word to say on the subject of the\\nFlood. The same thing is true of the Persians,\\n(455)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0493.jp2"}, "494": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwho possessed the doctrine of the Four World\\nAges, but no Flood story. Even in India, if, as\\nwe suppose, the Flood tradition was imported,\\nit failed to form the necessary counterpart of\\nthe Hindu doctrine of the Four Ages. Neither,\\nwe may be sure, did the Flood story arise from\\nany such abstract cause as the attempt to\\nescape from the eternity of matter. The germ\\nof the Flood story is moral, not metaphysical.\\nEven the doctrine of the World Ages is not\\nmerely an attempt to make eternity less long\\nby breaking it up, but rather to show through\\nwhat successive stages the world has deterio-\\nrated. It is also a weak point in Brinton s\\ntheory that out of all possible fates to which the\\nworld is consigned in its several cataclysms, there\\nis such a vast preponderance of tradition in favor\\nof a destruction by water. The doctrine of the\\nWorld Periods, whether we select two, four or\\nfive, throws no light on this curious unanimity of\\nopinion. Neither is there the slightest connec-\\ntion between a desire to cognize eternity and a\\nflood. And yet Brinton is right over and over\\nagain in asserting that the Flood story is closely\\nconnected with Creation. It was the perception\\nof this truth and the gradually growing convic-\\ntion that the Flood myth throughout the world is\\nthe companion-piece of the Creation myth that\\nled me to see the inadequacy of all naturalistic ex-\\nplanations of the Flood. In the majority of Flood\\nstories the religious myth is unmistakable. The\\nFlood marks a chapter in the history of the\\nworld. The Flood hero stands in a peculiar rela-\\ntion to God, by whom he is warned, guided, pre-\\nserved. In almost all cases he is represented as\\n(456)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0494.jp2"}, "495": {"fulltext": "Motive of Flood Story\\nthe ancestor of the human race, the father of the\\nnew humanity, either by procreation or, in the\\ncase of the Aryan Flood heroes, by creation. The\\npart played by birds in discovering or recovering\\nthe lost earth is similar to the part taken by birds\\nin Creation.\\nWhat motive, then, can we suggest that will\\naccount for and satisfy so many conditions?\\nWhat mental or moral conception can we find\\nequally operative among the most diverse peo-\\nples, which will enable us to make our way\\nthrough this labyrinth of fact and fiction With-\\nout hesitation we turn to the simplest and most\\nuniversal article of ancient belief, operative in the\\nnew world as well as in the old belief in a past\\nof Edenic felicity, with its necessary corollary of\\ndeterioration and ultimate perdition. It is not\\nnecessary for me now to review the evidence I\\nbrought forward in an earlier chapter of the al-\\nmost universal tradition that the Golden Age of\\nthe world came first. f Formal statements of\\nthis opinion are found in the doctrine of the\\nWorld Ages in Aryan mythology, in the age of\\nRa in Egypt, and in the mythological systems\\nof the new world. Coupled with the thought of\\nthe perfection of the first age is the thought of the\\ngrowing deterioration of subsequent ages. But\\ngiven this premise, the destruction of the world\\nis certain to follow. What form would this de-\\nstruction naturally take? The myth could not\\ncontradict the testimony of men s physical senses.\\nTheir belief was that in consequence of the de-\\nMyths of the New World, 103-106.\\nf See Pfleiderer s Die Idee eines Goldenen Zeitalters, Berlin,\\n1877.\\n(457)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0495.jp2"}, "496": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nterioration of the world and the growing iniquity\\nof man, the world had been destroyed. But their\\nsenses revealed to them the fact that the world is\\nstill here. How can those facts be reconciled?\\nAnd how does it happen that out of all possible\\ndangers with which men are threatened, prac-\\ntically all nations that possess the tradition of the\\ndestruction of the world are silent as to earth-\\nquakes, fire, pestilence and wind, and speak only\\nof the destruction by water? In reality the\\nreconciliation is simple yes, unavoidable. One\\nof these beliefs explains the other. The earth\\nhas been destroyed, yet it is still here. Evi-\\ndently, then, the earth has been recreated. The\\nproblem of recreation, therefore, is almost ex-\\nactly similar to the problem of creation. But to\\nthis problem, as Brinton truly says, there has\\nnever been more than one answer. The world\\ncame out of water. We find this belief from one\\nend of the world to the other, among Babylo-\\nnians, Hindus, Hebrews, Greeks and Egyptians,\\nas well as among the inhabitants of the American\\ncontinent and the islands of the Pacific. It is as\\nwidespread as the Flood tradition itself. The\\nsame train of thought, therefore, which con-\\nstrained so many nations to picture the world as\\nrising out of the water at its creation, constrained\\nthem to picture it as rising out of the water in\\nits re-creation. In short, there is in this explana-\\ntion the nucleus of the Flood myth; namely, (i)\\nA universal deluge (2) The moral motive of the\\ndeluge and (3) The relation of the Flood story to\\nthe Creation story. The salvation of a hero and\\nhis wife would naturally be described by the race\\nthat pretended to descend from that hero, as we\\n(458)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0496.jp2"}, "497": {"fulltext": "A New Explanation\\nsee in Greece. In time, other picturesque inci-\\ndents, such as the warning of God, the preserva-\\ntion of the cattle, etc., might follow. But the\\nessential features of the Flood myths which are\\nfound in many parts of the world rest, through\\nthe simplest induction, on beliefs that are shared\\nby a large portion of humanity. The world was\\nsaid to have been destroyed by water because\\nthat destruction was not permanent, but was fol-\\nlowed by a new lease of life. According to the\\nbelief of the most diverse nations, another de-\\nstruction is in store for the world, which will\\nbe final. It will be a destruction by fire, from\\nwhich no new world will emerge. That destruc-\\ntion is naturally still in the future. The Flood\\nstory, then, is connected with the creation of\\nearth on one side and with its final perdition on\\nthe other.\\nThe advantages I claim for this explanation\\nare the following:\\n1. The rehgious character of the Flood myth\\nis explained, which in the best examples of the\\nmyth cannot be explained by the naturalistic\\nhypothesis, or by simple nature-myths.\\n2. The close connection between the Flood\\nand the Creation of the world now becomes ap-\\nparent a most important point, on which\\nneither the nature-myth nor the naturalistic ex-\\nplanation throws any light.\\n3. The moral motive of the Flood, which plays\\nso important a part in the mythology of the\\nhigher nations, is supplied. This also the ether-\\nmyth leaves untouched.\\n4. In the face of all other catastrophes which\\nthreaten the earth earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.\\n(459)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0497.jp2"}, "498": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthis view explains why the universal myth of a\\nworld destruction is a Flood myth.\\n5. Lastly, I may mention the shadowy connec-\\ntion between the Flood and the end of the world,\\nof which we find traces in so many religious lit-\\neratures.\\nIn offering this theory I am far from imagin-\\ning that I have discovered the sole cause of the\\nFlood myths of mankind. Of the naturalistic\\ncauses that contributed to the development of\\na Flood myth I shall soon speak. It may be ex-\\npected that the lower we descend in the scale of\\nhumanity, the less important becomes the deter-\\nmining moral factor that I have suggested. On\\nthe other hand, among a brilliantly imaginative\\npeople Hke the Greeks, new motives would cer-\\ntainly be discovered, and, as Usener suggests,\\nthe myth would be transformed by other myths\\nof different origin. Other nature-myths, sug-\\ngested by the struggle of winter and summer, the\\nsight of the land emerging from the water in the\\nspring, etc., may well play a part; and we must\\nalso remember the transformation which the orig-\\ninal myth undergoes in passing from one people\\nto another. The great mistake almost every\\nwriter in this field has made is to be satisfied with\\ntoo simple a solution, whereas the material for\\nwhich one explanation is deemed sufficient is\\nthe richest and most composite imaginable. Al-\\nthough I am convinced that several of the mos-t\\nstriking features of the Flood myth cannot be\\naccounted for either by simple nature-myths or\\nby naturalistic hypotheses,* I am far from deny-\\nThe two strongest arguments against supposing the Flood\\nmyth to be developed merely from the recollection of actual dis-", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0498.jp2"}, "499": {"fulltext": "Natural Causes\\ning the part that natural causes have played in\\nthe formation of the many-sided Flood legend.\\nOn the contrary, as in the Flood story of Izdubar,\\nwe frequently see reminiscences of historical fact\\ngrafted on to the stem of the general myth. This\\ncircumstance, which is notorious to all who have\\nmade a careful study of the question,* can have\\nno place in the theory of those who place their\\nFlood solely in the sky, hence they are obliged to\\nclose their eyes to the most striking descriptions\\nof terrestrial deluges. Let us see, however, how\\nthe matter really stands. From the very nature\\nof the case, the materials out of which the ether-\\nmyth is spun are open to all. All nations see the\\nsetting sun, above all the great sea of heaven is\\nspread out, with its islands, peaks, canoes, man\\nand wife and what-not. All nations see the sky\\ncovered with clouds which conceal the lumi-\\nnaries, and the very nucleus of the theory is that\\npeople at a certain stage of culture reason on\\nthese facts in the same way. How does it happen,\\nthen, that all nations do not interpret these phe-\\nnomena similarly If that is the way the Flood\\nmyth is created, why do not all nations possess it\\nasters are i. Its essentially religious character and its close con-\\nnection with Creation. 2. The fact that earthquakes are nearly\\nas frequent as deluges and are even more disastrous and mys-\\nterious, yet that no true earthquake-myth exists.\\n*So great a master of primitive folk-lore as H. H. Bancroft\\nascribes the Flood traditions of the American Indians to the fol-\\nlowing sources i. The sudden rising of a river. 2. The dis-\\ncovery of sea shells on elevated places. 3. The submergence of\\nland by earthquake. 4. Scriptural tradition Native Races of\\nthe Pacific States, v. 138). The author of the brief but masterly\\narticle on Die Flutsagen in Meyer s Konversations Lexi-\\ncon also recognizes only naturalistic causes in the formation of\\nthe Flood legend. Richard Andree also declares himself unqual-\\nifiedly in favor of a physical cause of the Flood myth.\\n(461)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0499.jp2"}, "500": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThis, it may be said, is going much too far. It is\\nenough and more than enough that so many na-\\ntions have the Flood myth. No doubt this is\\ntrue, and yet it is not a little singular that as a rule\\nonly those countries have the Flood story where\\nfloods actually occur, while in those parts of the\\nworld, like Africa and Arabia and Central Asia,\\nin which floods rarely happen, the Flood story\\ncan scarcely be said to exist at all. In few parts\\nof the world are Flood stories more common than\\nin the islands of Polynesia, and nowhere are those\\nstories more satisfactorily accounted for by geo-\\ngraphical and cHmatic conditions. The same\\nthing may be said with less emphasis of North\\nAmerica, and I call attention again to the fact\\nthat many of the Flood stories we have examined\\nin different countries well describe the peculiar\\ncharacteristics of local deluges to which those\\ncountries are exposed. If the Flood myth were\\nmerely transferred from the sky to the earth, or\\narose from the belief in the growing sinfulness of\\nman, there ought to be no such congruity be-\\ntween the myth and the event. There would be\\nno reason why Flood stories should not arise in\\nthe heart of Africa or Arabia as freely as in Poly-\\nnesia or America. That, however, is not the case.\\nThere are exceptions, it is true, but as a rule,\\nin countries where destructive floods occur, tra-\\nditions occur, and conversely. Egypt is a case\\nin point, as to which the advocates of the ether-\\nmyth observe a significant silence. It is the very\\ncountry of all others where we should expect to\\nfind the ether-myth in operation. The Egyp-\\ntians had the idea of the sky as a sea, which the\\nsun-god, Ra, traverses in his boat. But in Egypt,\\n(46^)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0500.jp2"}, "501": {"fulltext": "Influence of Geographical Conditions\\nas Plato s Egyptian priest remarks, severe rain\\nstorms do not occur, and the only flood they\\nknow, the rise of the Nile, is a beneficent source\\nof life and fertility. Hence no Flood story exists\\nthere. Perhaps the same thing may be^said of\\nPersia. Consisting to a certain extent of high\\ntable-lands, shut in from the sea in both direc-\\ntions by lofty mountains, and with few large riv-\\ners, Persia would suffer little, if at all, from del-\\nuges; but in winter its plateaus and mountains are\\nintensely cold. Accordingly, the only story we\\nfind of a general destruction of human Hfe is not\\na destruction by water, but by a series of terrible\\nwinters. The same general geographical condi-\\ntions prevail in the great steppes of Central Asia,\\nand the same absence of Flood traditions. As for\\nChina, it is true floods occur there frequently,\\nand yet we have no true Chinese Flood myth.\\nThat is probably because the Chinese, having\\nlearned to write at a very early date and being a\\npeople but Httle addicted to mythology, have re-\\ncorded their floods in the form of history. Al-\\nthough I do not pretend to say that Flood and\\nFlood myth go everywhere hand in hand, yet\\nthey occur too often together to encourage the\\nsupposition that they have nothing to do with\\neach other.\\nAmong the physical causes of great deluges,\\nthe fall of rain is one of the least important.\\nThere is a point beyond which rainfall cannot go.\\nFar more dangerous than rain are gigantic waves\\npropagated by earthquakes, tornadoes and cy-\\nclones, and the sudden subsidence of the shores\\nof lakes and seas. In many true flood stories,\\nfor example, in a Peruvian story I have related,\\n(463)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0501.jp2"}, "502": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nin tales from the islands of the Pacific, and, I\\nbelieve, in the flood story of Izdubar, lively\\nrecollections of these horrors are unmistakably\\npresent.\\nThere is another factor which undoubtedly\\nplayed a large part in the evolution of the Flood\\ntradition. I mean the impression made on sav-\\nage minds by the remains of sea animals, fossil\\nfishes, marine shells, etc., deposited on high\\nplaces which now are never reached by the sea.\\nCheyne speaks of this as a rationaHstic idea,\\nwhich would occur only at a comparatively late\\nperiod of reflection. It would seem, however, an\\nexceedingly simple inference that where the re-\\nmains of sea animals now are, the sea must once\\nhave been. In support of this opinion, I remind\\nyou of several Flood stories related in the last\\nchapter, in which the Eskimos in one case and the\\ninhabitants of the Leeward Islands in another,\\nactually pointed to the fossil remains of sea ani-\\nmals deposited on mountains as a proof of the\\nreality of the Flood. To these examples I will add\\na few others, taken mostly from Andree and\\nTylor.f The Samoans believe that fish formerly\\nswam where the land now is, and that when the\\nwaters abated many of the fish were turned to\\nstone. The first missionaries to Greenland found\\na tolerably distinct version of the Flood story in\\nsupport of which the inhabitants affirmed that far\\nup in the country, where men never dwelt, there\\nwere found on a high mountain remains of all\\nsorts of fishes and even of whales. The same in-\\nference, as we know, was made by the ancients,\\nFlutsagen, 149.\\nf Early Hist, of Mankind, 326 ff.\\n(464)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0502.jp2"}, "503": {"fulltext": "Naturalistic Causes\\nfor example, by Herodotus and Strabo.f The\\nmost natural conclusion to be drawn from the\\npresence of marine fossils on mountains is that\\nthe sea once covered those mountains. But such\\na flood would be a universal, or a well-nigh uni-\\nversal deluge. In this way many of our Flood\\nstories doubtless arose, aided and enlivened by\\nrecollections of lesser actual deluges. Whatever\\nmythical or religious explanation is ultimately\\nadopted as the necessary cause of certain features\\nof the Flood traditions of mankind, a large place\\nmust always be left for the experience of the\\ncatastrophe and inductions from physical facts\\nsuch as we have described.\\n*ii. 12. fi. 3. 4.\\n(465)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0503.jp2"}, "504": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nChapter Twenty-one:\\nThe Physical Causes of Our Deluge. The\\nDiscovery of the Vine\\nAfter a rather long digression among the\\nXJL Flood traditions of mankind, I am glad to\\nreturn to our own Flood story of Genesis. It\\nseemed to me important that we should know\\nwhat a part this venerable tradition has played\\nin the mythology of the nations, and from what\\nideas and experiences the various Flood myths\\noriginated. In this last study we saw that,\\nalthough most Flood stories contain mythical\\nelements, other elements in many of them\\nplainly had their origin in fact. This applies\\nalso to our own tradition. The reasons for this\\nassertion I shall give immediately. Here I may\\nmerely say that, regarding our Flood as an event\\nthat actually took place, I shall attempt to dis-\\ncover the physical causes of that Flood, so far as\\nit is possible to determine them at the present\\ntime. We have, as you know, two great sources\\nof information in regard to the Deluge. One\\nbody of tradition is preserved in the Book of\\nGenesis, the other is contained in the literature\\nof Babylonia. Unquestionably, both these tradi-\\ntions refer to the same great catastrophe. Both\\nthe Babylonian and the Hebrew accounts have\\ncome down to us in two forms, the Hebrew, in\\n(466)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0504.jp2"}, "505": {"fulltext": "The Four Accounts\\nthe documents of the Jehovist and the Priestly\\nWriter of Genesis the Babylonian, in the history\\nof Berosus and in the epic poem of Izdubar. Of\\nthese four forms of the tradition, the poem of\\nIzdubar is by far the oldest. While Berosus\\nlived under Alexander the Great, and the Jeho-\\nvist, our earliest authority, lived certainly not\\nbefore the ninth century B.C., the poem of Izdu-\\nbar is believed to date from about 2000 B.C. It is\\ntherefore entitled to be regarded as our oldest\\nauthority for the Flood, and I shall treat it ac-\\ncordingly. But the Flood episode in the poem\\nof Izdubar is not only the oldest account of the\\nFlood, it is also, as we should expect, the most\\nexact in its description of events. A good many\\nspecific features which are of great value in de-\\ntermining what actually took place, fade away\\nand are obscured in the later versions. This also\\nlooks as if the story were founded on physical\\nfacts, which were well remembered when the Iz-\\ndubar version was written, but which afterward\\nwere forgotten. There is one other feature of\\nthe Flood story of Izdubar which is of some im-\\nportance. When we were studying that poem I\\npointed out a good many times that the original\\nconception of the Flood was not that of a uni-\\nversal destruction, but of a local deluge, sent to\\ndestroy the single city of Surippak, on the Eu-\\nphrates. As time passed the Flood grew in mag-\\nnitude and put on greater proportions. But it is\\nvery plain that the original story was not a story\\nof a world-deluge.\\nThis may be disappointing to some, but, on the\\nwhole, it is reassuring. It is now admitted by all\\nthat no such universal Deluge has taken place.\\n(467)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0505.jp2"}, "506": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nIf our story spoke only of a universal Deluge, we\\ncould hardly suppose that it had any foundation\\nin fact. But by admitting that the story was not\\noriginally a story of the destruction of the world,\\nbut of the destruction of Surippak, we cut the\\nground from under every mythological explana-\\ntion of our Flood. .No one would invent a\\nworld-myth to account for the destruction of one\\nlittle town. This, I conceive, to persons who\\nprefer fact to fiction, is a distinct gain. What-\\never mythical features our story afterward took\\non, and there are plenty of them, it had its origin\\nin a physical fact, not in a mere idea. With this\\npreface I turn to the story itself, in the hope of\\nbeing able to separate its physical elements from\\nthe mythology in which they were afterward\\nclothed. In this study I shall depend largely on\\nthe judicious remarks of Ihering in his Evolu-\\ntion of the Aryan, and on the brilliant treatise of\\nEdouard Suess, the Swiss geologist.* It will be\\nnecessary for us to review, to a certain extent,\\nthe Flood episode contained in the eleventh\\ntablet of Izdubar.\\nThe scene of the Flood, as we know, is Surip-\\npak. Sit-napistim says to Izdubar:\\nIzdubar, I will tell you the secret. The city\\nSurippak, which you know, on the banks of the Euphrates,\\nthe same city was already old when the gods were minded\\nto send a flood.\\nThe exact site of Surippak has not been dis-\\ncovered. It lay, as the poem says, on the Eu-\\nphrates, and scholars believe that it is to be\\nlooked for on the lower course of the river. We\\nDie Sintfluth, Prag, 1883,\\n_", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0506.jp2"}, "507": {"fulltext": "Situation of Surippak\\nmust also remember that at the time of the Flood,\\nwhich was certainly earHer than 2000 B.C., the\\nTigris and the Euphrates did not unite as they\\ndo now, but each flowed independently into the\\nPersian Gulf.* It would appear that Surippak,\\nwhich means shiptown, was a seafaring city,\\nboth from the readiness with which Sit-napistim\\nset to work to build his large vessel and from his\\nfear of the criticism or ridicule of the townspeo-\\nple when they should see him constructing so\\nstrange a craft. You will remember his reply to\\nthe command of Ea to build a ship\\nMy lord, what you have commanded I will hold in\\nhonor but what shall I answer to the town, the\\npeople and the elders?\\nIn fact, every feature of Sit-napistim s prep-\\naration, the taking of a rudder and a pilot, the\\nuse of the birds in finding land, etc., seems to have\\noriginated among a seafaring people that well\\nunderstood the construction and navigation of\\nships. In this connection the caulking of the ship\\nwith asphalt or mineral pitch, which Sit-napistim\\ndid of his own accord, is very interesting.\\nSix sar [large measures] of asphalt [bitumen] I poured\\non the outside, three sar of asphalt on the inside.\\nThis circumstance is mentioned in Genesis,\\nbut there Noah is commanded by God, Thou\\nshalt pitch it within and without with pitch. f\\nThe Hebrews, not being a maritime people,\\nwould not expect Noah to think of that him-\\nSee Suess remarks, pp. lo, ii and Frd. Delitzsch, Wo\\nlag- das Paradies? 1883, pp. 173-182.\\nf Gen. vi. 14.\\n{469)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0507.jp2"}, "508": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nself. The employment of asphalt is a correct\\nhistorical allusion. The heights along the Lower\\nEuphrates are rich in bitumen, and it is still used\\nfor the purpose of making vessels watertight.*\\nThe use of mineral pitch would make Sit-\\nnapistim s vessel black, as the poem asserts.\\nIt is also significant that the warnings of the com-\\ning destruction are given by Ea, who is repre-\\nsented first as sending a dream to Sit-napistim,\\nand then as speaking to him by a voice. Leaving\\nthe dream to one side, we should naturally under-\\nstand by the voice of the god of the deep some of\\nthose preHminary warnings of the sea which be-\\ntoken the coming storm, or the first trembling\\nwhich precedes the earthquake.!\\nThe description of the catastrophe itself is full\\nof meaning. Unfortunately, on account of our\\nignorance of the minor deities of the Babylonian\\npantheon, part of its meaning escapes us. It is\\nvery plain, however, that the Flood was not\\ncaused by rain alone, nor by an overflow of the\\nEuphrates River. In fact, the violent downpour\\nof rain only served as a signal that the Flood was\\nabout to begin.\\nWhen he who sends the whirlwind sends in the evening\\na terrible rainstorm, then go into the ship and shut the\\ndoor.\\nThe description of the oncoming Flood Jensen\\ntranslates as follows\\nSee report of Joseph Cernik, Expedition for Technical Study\\nin the Euphrates District, quoted by Suess, 12, 13. In regard to\\nthe art of navigation among the Babylonians, see Ihering, pp.\\n162-169. Ihering beheves that the Babylonians possessed sea-\\ngoing ships and some knowledge of navigation as early as 4000\\nB.C.\\nf Suess.\\n(470)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0508.jp2"}, "509": {"fulltext": "Causes of Flood\\nAs soon as the glow of dawn appeared,\\nA dusky cloud rose on the firmament of Heaven.\\nRamman thundered in it.\\nNabu and Marduk went before,\\nWent as leaders over mountain and land.\\nUrugal tore the ship s [rudder] loose.\\nNinib advanced, let the raging storm follow.\\nThe Annunaki raised their torches,\\nBy their streaming brightness they made the land to\\nsparkle.\\nRamman s swelling waves rose to heaven,\\nTurned all brightness into darkness\\nHe overflowed the land like a\\nFor one [day the hurricane smote].\\nSwiftly blew hither the waters rose to the\\nmountains,\\nBore down on men like a battle storm.\\nBrother saw not his brother, men were not regarded in\\nheaven.\\nThe general meaning of this seems plain. The\\nFlood begins with a terrific atmospheric dis-\\nturbance. Thick clouds obscure the sky, the day\\nis like night. Brother could not see brother,\\nsave only for the flashing lightning. In short,\\nwe have here a vivid picture of a violent storm,\\nperhaps accompanied by a waterspout. The gods\\nthat are mentioned in the earlier parts of the\\ndescription are mostly elemental deities, gods of\\nthe upper regions. Ramman is a storm god,\\nNinib a solar deity; the storm sun, Marduk, also\\nis a heavenly deity. This remark, however, does\\nnot apply to all. The Annunaki, who play such a\\nprominent role and who are later held chiefly\\nresponsible for the Flood, are spirits of the\\nearth.* Urugal, who tore the ship from its\\nmoorings, is a god of the lower world. It would\\nappear, then, that the Flood is represented as\\nsurging up from below as well as coming from\\nJastrow, p. 184.\\n(471)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0509.jp2"}, "510": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nabove. This tradition is more clearly preserved\\nin Genesis, where it is distinctly stated that\\nbefore the rain fell all the fountains of the\\ngreat deep were broken tip. Unfortunately,\\nBerosus account of the oncoming of the Flood\\nhas perished. But so much emphasis is laid on\\nthis fact in Genesis that we are rather surprised\\nthat the Babylonian poem does not mention it\\nmore distinctly, especially as it was an idea which\\nmust have originated f in Lower Babylonia.\\nThis gives us the impression of an earthquake.\\nIt is well known that in alluvial soil of recent\\nformation one does not have to go far beneath\\nthe surface to find water. Sir Charles Lyell re-\\nminds us of what took place in 1812 in New\\nMadrid, which Hes on the bank of the Mississippi,\\na little below the mouth of the Ohio, in the State\\nof Missouri. There the ground continued to\\nquake for several months. The inhabitants say\\nthat the earth rose in great waves, and when\\nthese had reached a certain fearful height the\\nsoil burst, and vast columns of water, sand and\\ncoal were discharged as high as the tops of the\\ntrees. At one time the ground swelled up so\\nas to turn back temporarily the great volume\\nof the Mississippi River.$ When we hear of the\\nwaves of Ramman rising to Heaven, and the\\nfountains of the great deep breaking up, we\\nnaturally think of a violent earthquake. If its\\ncentre of action, as it would appear, was in the\\n*Gen. vii. 11.\\nf We must remember, however, that in the Babylonian poem the\\ncauses of the Flood are stated mythically, and the allusion to the\\npart played by earth spirits would be nearly equivalent to the\\nallusion to the bursting of subterranean waters in Genesis.\\nX Principles of Geolog-y, nth ed., ii. io6 ff.\\n(472)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0510.jp2"}, "511": {"fulltext": "Three Physical Phenomena\\nPersian Gulf, great waves would certainly be\\nformed which would strike the low-lying banks\\nof the Euphrates with frightful force. But be-\\nfore such waves made their presence felt, it would\\nseem that the alluvial soil of Lower Babylonia\\nitself experienced a shaking somewhat similar to\\nthat of New Madrid, in consequence of which\\nthe waters confined beneath the shallow crust of\\nearth burst forth, giving the impression that the\\nfountains of the great deep were breaking up.\\nAt all events the three following physical phe-\\nnomena apparently were before the minds of\\nthe authors of Izdubar and of the writers of\\nGenesis\\n1. A severe storm, accompanied by wind, thick\\ndarkness, thunder and Hghtning.\\n2. A seismic disturbance of the alluvial soil of\\nBabylonia, in consequence of which considerable\\nvolumes of water were driven upward.\\n3. The action of this same disturbance beneath\\nthe waters of the Persian Gulf, at that time not\\nfar distant from Surippak, which propagated\\ngreat waves up the Euphrates, completely sub-\\nmerging its banks and spreading far inland.\\nI shall speak in a moment of the necessity for\\nthis last supposition. Here I wish to remark that\\nevery feature of the Flood story of Izdubar\\nspeaks for a sudden and brief catastrophe, not for\\na slow accumulation and abatement of waters like\\nthat described in Genesis. We see how suddenly\\nthe Flood came, as swiftly as in Galveston. In\\na single day the damage was done and the coun-\\ntry was submerged. This fact in itself forbids us\\nto think of rain as a principal cause. The Flood\\nalso abated suddenly.\\n(473)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0511.jp2"}, "512": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nFor six days and nights went the wind.\\nThe flood-storm, the hurricane smote the earth.\\nWhen the seventh day broke, the waters abated,\\nThe flood-storm ceased,\\nThe storm, which had fought Hke an armed host.\\nThe sea was quiet which the hurricane had stirred up.\\nI looked out on the sea, I let my voice sound;\\nBut all men were turned to clay.\\nEverything here speaks for an irruption of\\nwater from the Persian Gulf. The presence of\\nthe sea so far inland can hardly be accounted\\nfor by a hurricane. We should think rather of\\ngigantic waves launched by a submarine earth-\\nquake. This becomes plainer as we go on.\\nAfter twelve [days, or double hours?] a strip of land ap-\\npeared.\\nThe ship reached the land Nisir.\\nThe mountain of the land Nisir held the ship fast, and\\nwould not let it move from its place.\\nOne day, a second day the mountain of Nisir held it.\\nA third day, a fourth day, etc.\\nA fifth day, a sixth day, etc.\\nThis passage proves conclusively that the\\nFlood was not caused by an overflow of the Eu-\\nphrates, produced by rains, however extraor-\\ndinary. Had that been the case, Sit-napistim s\\nvessel would have been carried in a southerly di-\\nrection, into the Persian Gulf. But according to\\nall our accounts, the vessel or ark sailed, or was\\ndriven, to the north. The later versions (Genesis\\nand Berosus) speak of Armenia as a landing\\nplace, which, from the point of view of natural\\nscience, is out of the question. It is too far and\\ntoo elevated to be submerged by a deluge pro-\\nduced by natural causes in the region of the Per-\\nsian Gulf. The earher tradition preserved in\\nIzdubar is, however, much more moderate. It\\n(474)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0512.jp2"}, "513": {"fulltext": "Possibility of Earthquake\\nplaces the landing of Sit-napistim s ship in the\\nland of Nisir, which lies only about three hun-\\ndred miles northwest of the Persian Gulf and in\\nthe direction of its axis. Considering the nature\\nof the intervening land, which is a low, alluvial\\nplain, it would not appear impossible that a series\\nof gigantic waves set in motion in the Persian\\nGulf (which we must remember then extended\\nmuch further inland) might penetrate so far, and\\neven deposit a vessel of light draught on the first\\nrange of mountains it encountered. It is not\\nstated in Izdubar that the vessel rested on the\\nsummit of the mountain, but only that it rested\\non a mountain in the land of Nisir. The vessel is\\ncarried northward over the low plains between\\nthe rivers, reaches the bed of the Lower Tigris,\\nwhich would be equally affected by such a dis-\\nturbance; then it is carried further north and\\nnortheast to the adjacent mountains. Remem-\\nbering, as I have said, that at the time of the Del-\\nuge the Persian Gulf extended nearly a hundred\\nmiles further inland than now,* the distance\\ntraversed was perhaps two hundred and fifty\\nmiles and the time consumed was about one week.\\nIn view of the far-reaching effects of earthquakes\\nrecorded by Sir Charles Lyell and other geolo-\\ngists, there does not appear to be anything im-\\nprobable in this. At all events, the excellent ge-\\nologist, Suess, who has investigated the subject\\nmore thoroughly than any one else, finds no\\nIn primitive times the Persian Gulf extended much further\\ninland than it did later, and to the present day the recovery of\\nsubmerged land goes slowly but steadily on, in ancient times at\\nthe rate of one English mile in thirty years, now at the rate of\\none mile in seventy years. F. Hommel, Geschichte Babylo-\\nniens, pp. i8i, 182.\\n(475)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0513.jp2"}, "514": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ndifficulty in accepting this hypothesis. That this\\nwas the actual concatenation of events which\\nbrought about the Deluge, I do not dream of as-\\nserting, but I believe it is the most probable ex-\\nplanation yet offered of the physical phenomena\\ndescribed in the oldest version of the Flood story.\\nWhether or not we feel Uke admitting that the\\neffects of an earthquake in the Persian Gulf could\\ncarry a vessel so far inland, it seems reasonable to\\nbeheve that such an earthquake was the prime\\ncause of the Deluge. On this supposition, the\\npreliminary warnings, the bursting of subterra-\\nnean waters, the surging waves of Ramman, the\\npresence of the sea so far inland, above all, the\\ncourse of the vessel or ark against the current of\\nboth Tigris and Euphrates, become intelligible.\\nIt ought not to be objected to this that the\\ncombination of earthquake and storm is an im-\\nprobable coincidence, another tax on our cre-\\ndulity. Sir Charles Lyell speaks frequently of\\nthe fact that severe earthquakes are accompanied\\nalmost always by violent storms sudden gusts\\nof wind violent rains at unusual sea-\\nsons, reddening of the sun s disk and haziness in\\nthe air often continue for months. Several of\\nthe earthquakes recorded by him and by Suess\\nwere attended by storms of the most violent char-\\nacter.\\nAlthough I do not know that earthquakes\\nhave occurred in the Persian Gulf in modern\\ntimes, the region of Mesopotamia has been fre-\\nquently shaken. Perhaps its most celebrated\\nearthquake was that which in the year 763 B.C.,\\nthe year of the eclipse, made itself felt from As-\\nPrinciples of Geology, 281.\\n_", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0514.jp2"}, "515": {"fulltext": "Time of the Year\\nSyria to Palestine,* and which the Prophet Amos\\ndescribes in these remarkable words Seek him\\nthat maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turn-\\neth the shadow of death into the morning, and\\nmaketh the day dark with night that calleth for\\nthe waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon\\nthe face of the earth The Lord is His name. t\\nIt is to be remembered, however, that our Flood\\nis described as a catastrophe of unusual severity,\\nin fact, as an altogether unique occurrence. It\\ntook place in a portion of the world which even\\nthen was thickly populated, and it was probably\\nattended with fearful loss of life.\\nI will add two other incidents that make for the\\nview of the Deluge which I have adopted from\\nSuess. Berosus, you may remember, asserts that\\nthe Flood began in summer, in May or June.\\nThis, it has been conjectured, was the mistake of\\nsome copyist. It has been considered impossible\\nthat the Flood should have begun in summer, be-\\ncause at that time the rivers are at their lowest.\\nIf, however, the Flood was caused by an inunda-\\ntion from the Persian Gulf, it might have occurred\\nat one time of the year as well as another. Lyell\\nspeaks of violent storms at unusual times of the\\nyear, accompanying earthquakes. It is true that\\nthe Flood story of Izdubar is contained in the\\neleventh tablet of that poem, corresponding to\\nthe eleventh month, November, the month of\\nthe plague of rain, yet it is not impossible that\\nBerosus has preserved an older tradition.\\nDetermined by Lehmann and Oppholzer s calculation of an\\neclipse of the sun, which occurred on June 14, 763 B.C. See\\nSuess, p. 59.\\nf Amos, V. 8.\\n(477)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0515.jp2"}, "516": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nMy other remark is this In the Book of Gen-\\nesis, the coming of the Flood is introduced in\\na rather awkward manner. God says, Behold,\\nI, even I, will bring a flood, namely waters upon\\nthe earth. And again, in the next chapter,\\nthe expression is repeated, And Noah was six\\nhundred years old when the flood, namely,\\nwaters, was upon the earth. f It is generally\\nsupposed that the reason for this circumlocution\\nlay in the fact that the Hebrew word for flood\\n{inabbul) is very unusual in that language. The\\nauthor, therefore, felt it necessary each time to\\nadd the word waters in explanation. But it\\nhas been suggested that the word majim,\\nwhich we translate waters, by a very slight\\nchange would read jnijjam, which means\\nfrom the sea, so that both these passages\\nwould then read, I am bringing a flood from the\\nsea. J\\nIn this connection I must mention the frag-\\nment of a Babylonian Flood legend discovered\\nby F. E. Peiser in the British Museum and pub-\\nlished by him in i889.\u00c2\u00a7 Unfortunately, the text\\nis brief and exceedingly mutilated, but what\\nmakes it of peculiar interest is the fact that it is\\naccompanied by a map of Babylonia which must\\nbe one of the oldest geographical representations\\nin the world. It seems to be generally admitted\\nby Assyriologists^ that this fragment originally\\nGen. vi. 17.\\nf Gen. vii. 6.\\nX J. D. Michaelis, 1775, quoted by Suess.\\nZeitschrift fur Assyriologie, 1889, pp. 361-370.\\nII Peiser regards it as hardly later than goo B.C.\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2jf This statement is made on the authority of Dr. George A.\\nBarton, of Bryn Mawr College. Zimmern Encycl. Bib. ex-\\n(478)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0516.jp2"}, "517": {"fulltext": "Peiser s Map\\ndescribed a flood. According to Peiser, Zim-\\nmern and others, a portion of Sit-napistim s\\nname appears in the text, and the map itself rep-\\nresents Babylonia as surrounded by water. I re-\\nfer to the translation of the descriptive portions\\nof the map and the valuable notes most kindly\\nprepared for me by my friend Dr. Barton, which\\nare published in the appendix of this work. The\\nmore important portion of Peiser s text is as fol-\\nlows\\nFallen towns which Marduk the lord\\nsees. And the fled gods, who, in the midst of the sea\\nsit they; and in the year of the great ser-\\npent in which Zu have gazelle\\npanther lion, hyena goat and\\nstallion pagitum, antelope forsaken the\\ninterior of Babylonia.\\nThe beasts seem to have left the doomed plain,\\neven the gods appear to have taken flight, as in\\nIzdubar.\\nThe animals which live on the great sea Mar-\\nduk [at the time of] Samas-napistim-usur, the\\nearlier king to whom Dagan [had given] the kingdom of\\nDur, etc. (Peiser s translation).\\nWhat makes this ancient map so interesting to\\nus at this point is the fact that it depicts Baby-\\nlonia overwhelmed by the waters of the Persian\\nGulf, called here, as in Babylonian and Assyrian\\ntexts generally, the bitter stream. The Per-\\nsian Gulf is represented on the map as entering\\nBabylonia at the mouth of the Euphrates,\\nthrough the canal of reeds and the outlet;\\npresses himself more strongly. Dr. Jastrow, however, in a pri-\\nvate letter, doubts whether this fragment really contains a Flood\\nlegend.\\n(479)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0517.jp2"}, "518": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nand th e very manner in which the Bitter Stream\\nis depicted as entering the land through channels\\non each side of the river itself, might seem to indi-\\ncate that the mouth of the Euphrates was com-\\npletely inundated. Babylon is correctly repre-\\nsented as lying on both sides of the river. To\\nthe north rises the great mountain which Zim-\\nmern regards as the landing place of the Flood\\nhero, but which Dr. Barton considers the moun-\\ntain boundary of the world. Dr. Barton, how-\\never, believes he finds Artu, or Ararat, in the\\nmap, to the northeast of Babylon. Although it\\nwould be unwise, in view of the incompleteness\\nof the text, to insist on the evidence of this frag-\\nment, it is certainly a matter of interest that we\\nshould possess an ancient Babylonian map ex-\\nhibiting the Deluge, and that this map should\\nrepresent Babylonia as surrounded and sub-\\nmerged by the Persian Gulf.\\nTo this I will only add that the explanation of\\nthe Flood here offered is entirely compatible\\nwith the fact that Egypt was not affected by it\\nfor this flood, originating in the Persian Gulf\\nand passing inward for a few hundred miles up\\nthe course of the Euphrates and the Tigris, would\\nnot affect Egypt on the Mediterranean basin at\\nall. The conditions of Lower Mesopotamia are\\naltogether favorable to such an occurrence. They\\nare quite similar to the conditions in India at the\\nmouths of the Ganges, where frightful deluges,\\ninvolving great loss of life, take place to the pres-\\nent day. If, then, an unusual and long remem-\\nbered deluge did occur in Lower Babylonia,\\nwhich there is no reason to doubt, the foregoing\\nexplanation is probably the b est it has received,\\n(480)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0518.jp2"}, "519": {"fulltext": "Noah s Sons\\nas it follows closely the literal statements of the\\nmost ancient tradition, without violating scien-\\ntific probability. In the Book of Genesis, as in\\nthe Babylonian accounts, this well-known catas-\\ntrophe seems to have served as the substratum\\nof reahty on which was reared the great religious\\nmyth, the destruction of the world as a judgment\\nfor sin.\\nBefore concluding, I wish to complete our\\nstudy of the Deluge by examining the curious\\npassage with which the Flood story ends (Gen.\\n18-27):\\n18. And the sons of Noah who went forth from the ark\\nwere Shem, Ham and Japheth, and Ham was the father of\\nCanaan.\\n19. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these\\nthe whole earth was overspread.\\nThese two verses evidently follow immediately\\non the story of the Deluge. They take for\\ngranted that Noah and his family are the only\\nhuman beings living. The same names are as-\\nsigned to the three sons of Noah as in the pre-\\nvious passages in which they are mentioned.*\\nThe only thing that strikes us as peculiar is the\\nabrupt mention of Canaan as the son of Ham,\\nalthough none of the children of Noah s other\\nsons is mentioned. The reason for this, however,\\nwe soon see. For, as we read along, we observe\\nthat these two verses are intended merely to in-\\ntroduce a very peculiar little story in regard to\\nNoah, in which the names of his three sons are not\\nShem, Ham and Japheth, but Shem, Japheth\\nand Canaan. It was doubtless to soften the con-\\ntradiction between the names of Noah s sons that\\nGen. V. 32 vi. 10 vii. 13.\\n31 (481)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0519.jp2"}, "520": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthe verse we have just translated added and\\nHam was the father of Canaan. The story re-\\npeated below runs as follows\\n20. And Noah the farmer began to plant a vineyard.\\n21. And he drank of the wine, and became intoxicated;\\nand he was uncovered within his tent.\\n22. And Ham the father of Canaan saw his father s nak-\\nedness, and he told it to his two brothers outside.\\n2^. And Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it\\non their shoulders and covered the nakedness of their\\nfather, going in backwards with their faces averted, so that\\nthey did not see the nakedness of their father.\\n24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and became aware\\nof what his youngest son had done to him.\\n25. And he said, Cursed be Canaan. The meanest\\nslave let him be to his brothers.\\n26. And he said, Blessed be Jahveh, the God of Shem.*\\nAnd let Canaan be their slave, f\\n27. God enlarge Japheth,\\nAnd let him dwell in the tents of Shem;\\nAnd let Canaan be their slave.\\nThis little composition is very ancient, prob-\\nably much older than the rest of our Flood story\\nin its present form. If anything besides its abso-\\nlute na iveU is needed to prove this, it is found in\\nthe singular poem of Noah, which is evi-\\ndently one of those little antique chants like\\nLamech s song, which antedate writing and come\\ndown from the earliest times. It is plain that\\nthis prophetical chant, containing a blessing for\\nShem and Japheth and a curse for Canaan, is the\\nnucleus of the whole incident, from which the\\nstrange story of Noah was evolved. But this\\nstory presents Noah in a totally new light. In-\\nstead of the rather shadowy character, the right-\\n*0r, as Budde translates, omitting the word Elohim, The\\nblessed of Jahveh is Shem.\\nf i.e., the slave of his brothers.\\n(482)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0520.jp2"}, "521": {"fulltext": "Canaan and Ham\\neous man whom we have known, we find Noah\\nhere in a state of intoxication which, to say the\\nleast, surprises us. The abrupt mention of Noah\\nthe farmer is entirely unexpected, and it is\\nalso strange to find the father and his three\\nsons still dwelling together in one tent, as, ac-\\ncording to the Flood story, Shem, Ham and\\nJapheth were all married men, who after the\\nFlood would naturally have homes of their own.\\nBut this is not all. When we look at Noah s\\nsong, which is, as we have said, the oldest part\\nof the composition, we find that the three\\nsons are not Shem, Ham and Japheth, but Shem,\\nJapheth and Canaan. It is said in the introduc-\\ntion to the poem that Ham, the father of\\nCanaan, beheld Noah s nakedness. But in the\\npoem itself it is not Ham who was cursed, but\\nCanaan. Ham s name is not mentioned at all.\\nCursed be Canaan, the meanest slave let him be\\nto his brothers. If Ham committed the crime,\\nwhy was not he cursed instead of his child, who\\nhad done nothing? The only answer is that it\\nwas Canaan, not Ham, who was guilty of this\\nfault, and in the poem Canaan is distinctly called\\nthe brother of Shem and Japheth. In the twenty-\\nfourth verse the perpretrator of the deed is def-\\ninitely called the youngest son of Noah. Accord-\\ning, then, to the most ancient tradition preserved\\nin this poem, the three sons of Noah were not\\nShem, Ham and Japheth, but Shem, Japheth and\\nCanaan. Of course this does not agree with what\\nwas said of Noah s family in the Flood story, and\\nit was with the intention of softening this contra-\\ndiction that some editor changed the words\\nShem, Japheth and Canaan, to Shem, Ham and\\n(483)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0521.jp2"}, "522": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nJapheth, adding by way of explanation, and\\nHam was the father of Canaan.\\nIt would therefore appear that the episode of\\nthe drunkenness of Noah had nothing to do with\\nthe story of the Flood, which now precedes it.\\nIt was merely one of those very old Israelitish tra-\\nditions that describe the beginnings of human\\nculture and the transition from the nomadic to a\\nsettled life. Noah was a farmer. He made the\\ndiscovery of the wonderful properties of the\\ngrape and began its culture. That was an im-\\nportant step in human progress, but, as our Je-\\nhovist loves to show us, every step man takes in\\nthis direction is beset with danger, and Noah be-\\ncomes the victim of his own discovery. Closely\\nconnected with this is Noah s curse of Canaan,\\nhis youngest son, and his blessing of Shem and\\nJapheth.\\nAlthough all this has nothing to do with the\\nstory of the Flood, and though it contradicts the\\nstatements of the Flood story, it is a very interest-\\ning tradition of ancient times. The question is,\\nWhere does this episode belong? If it has no\\nnatural connection w4th the Flood, is there any\\nother portion of the history of Noah with which\\nit combines more naturally? I think there is.\\nTurning back to the fifth chapter of Genesis,\\nwhere the birth of Noah is described,* we read\\nthat his father Lamech called his name Noah,\\nsaying, This same will comfort us for our work,\\nfor the sore labor of our hands which comes from\\nthe ground which Jahveh has cursed. How was\\nthis prophecy fulfilled? Certainly not by Noah s\\nescape from the Flood in his ark. That brought\\nGen. V. 29,\\n(48^0", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0522.jp2"}, "523": {"fulltext": "Noah s Discovery\\nlittle comfort to Lamech, for Noah saved only\\nhimself and his immediate family, while Lamech\\nappears to have been drowned. Moreover, the\\nbuilding of an ark has nothing to do with the\\nhardships of a farmer s life, of which Lamech so\\nbitterly complained. This obscure saying of\\nLamech s, however, becomes clear in the Hght of\\nthe fact that Noah discovered the use of wine and\\nfirst planted the grape. In antiquity generally,\\nand also in the Old Testament, the vine was al-\\nways regarded as one of the choice gifts of\\nHeaven and as expressly intended to mitigate\\nthe hardships of man s lot. Give strong drink,\\nsays the proverb, to him that is ready to per-\\nish, and wine to those that be of heavy hearts.\\nLet him drink and forget his poverty and remem-\\nber his misery no more. Among the best\\nblessings Isaac could invoke on his first-born\\nwas plenty of corn and wine. t The Psalm\\nspeaks of wine that maketh glad the heart of\\nman. Although the terrible effects of the\\nabuse of wine are truthfully displayed in the Old\\nTestament, yet the vine and grape are praised as\\ngood gifts of God, not only for their own sake,\\nbut as the symbol of a peaceable and settled life.\\nSo Noah is represented as making this discovery\\nby which the prophecy of his father Lamech was\\nfulfilled, he shall comfort us for all our toil and\\nfor the sore labor of our hands which comes from\\nthe ground which Jahveh has cursed. This\\nseems to be very plain. We have seen already\\nthat the story of Noah and the vine has nothing\\nto do with the Flood, but it is quite consistent\\nwith the notice of Noah s birth. Lamech prophe-\\nProv. xxxi. 6, 7. f Gen. xxvii. 28. ifPs, civ. 15.\\n(48s)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0523.jp2"}, "524": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nsies that Noah will bring comfort to his contem-\\nporaries in their hard struggle with the earth, and\\nNoah fulfils that prophecy by causing the earth to\\nbring forth wine, which Jeremiah calls the cup\\nof consolation. We may therefore conjecture\\nwith much confidence that the story of Noah\\nand the vine originally followed the account of\\nhis birth, that it was written without reference to\\nthe Flood, and that it was placed where it now\\nstands at a much later time.f\\nThis disposes of one of the difficulties of the\\npassage, but there remains another. Almost im-\\nmediately after the story of Noah and the vine,\\noccurs the celebrated genealogical table in which\\nall the nations of the ancient world known to the\\nHebrews are derived from the three sons of\\nNoah: Shem, Ham and Japheth. Now one thing\\nis very plain. If, as we have seen, the story of\\nNoah and the vine was not written with reference\\nto the Flood, the descendants of Noah described\\nin this episode would not have been regarded as\\nthe ancestors of the whole human race, but only\\nof a small part of it. This also is fully corrobo-\\nrated by the story itself. One of Noah s sons, as\\nwe have seen, is Canaan, by whom we can under-\\nstand only the ancestor of the people of the West\\nJordan land which Israel knew by that name.\\nThe eldest son, Shem, whose God is Jahveh, is, of\\ncourse, the ancestor of Israel, to whom alone\\nJahveh revealed Himself. But it cannot be im-\\nagined that the writer of this passage believed\\nthat two-thirds of humanity had descended from\\nJeremiah, xvi. 7.\\nf So, Budde, Urgeschichte, chapter ix., and Bohmer, Das\\nerste Buch der Thora, p. 140 f.\\n(486)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0524.jp2"}, "525": {"fulltext": "Shem, Ham and Japheth\\nthese two nations. The Hebrews never pre-\\ntended that many of the nations of the earth were\\nclosely related to them, and, in the genealogical\\ntable which follows, far from asserting that one-\\nthird of the human race had descended from\\nCanaan, they mention the Canaanites along with\\nthe Egyptians and other inhabitants of Africa as\\none of the nations descended from Ham. The\\nconclusion to be drawn is this: As the story of\\nNoah and the vine had nothing to do with the\\nFlood, the three sons of Noah in that story had, if\\nI may say so, entirely different values from the\\nShem, Ham and Japheth of the genealogical\\ntable. In the story of the vine, Shem, Japheth\\nand Canaan were not regarded as the ancestors\\nof all humanity, but only as the ancestors of three\\nnations, of which Israel was one and Canaan was\\nanother. In the genealogical table of the na-\\ntions, however, the condition was wholly differ-\\nent. After the Flood, Noah and his three sons\\nare represented as the only men alive. The whole\\nhuman race, therefore, must be descended from\\nthem. It would never do, however, to say that\\none-third of the human family came from an in-\\nsignificant people like the Canaanites. Accord-\\ningly, the name of Noah s youngest son was\\nchanged from Canaan to Ham. What is certain\\nis that in the genealogical table Shem, Ham and\\nJapheth have acquired a kind of symbolical mean-\\ning as the progenitors of the whole human race.\\nThey are the ancestors of the most diverse peo-\\nples that are grouped together, not through ties\\nof blood and language, but for the most part be-\\ncause of mere geographical contiguity. We\\nshould look in vain for any man or nation that\\n(487)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0525.jp2"}, "526": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nhad given birth to races so unlike as those we\\nencounter here. When, however, our story of\\nNoah and the vine speaks of the three sons of\\nNoah, Shem, Japheth and Canaan, it means\\nsomething entirely different. It does not as-\\nsume that the whole human race was descended\\nfrom these three men, but only, in accordance\\nwith ancient ideas, that they had given birth to\\nthree nations, of which Canaan is one and Israel\\nis another. Up to this point the argument is per-\\nfectly plain.\\nNow let us return to the story. Noah is over-\\ncome by his own discovery the wine which he\\ntasted for the first time, and of whose properties\\nhe was ignorant was too potent for him. Canaan\\ntakes an immodest advantage of his father s help-\\nless condition, beholds Noah s shame and irrev-\\nerently relates his act to his two brothers. They,\\nhowever, moved by filial piety, enter the tent with\\naverted eyes and protect their father from fur-\\nther mortification by covering him with his\\nmantle. When Noah awakes and becomes aware\\nof what has occurred, he utters a solemn and pro-\\nphetical speech. He curses Canaan for his in-\\ndecency and condemns him to a life of perpetual\\nservitude. Cursed be Canaan, the meanest\\nslave let him be to his brothers. And, on the\\nother hand, he rewards the honorable conduct of\\nShem and Japheth with a blessing. The richest\\nblessing belongs to Shem. Either Noah declares\\nhim to be the blessed of Jahveh, or he blesses Jah-\\nveh, the God of Shem, for his sake. Then, turn-\\ning to Japheth, he says, God enlarge Japheth,\\nand let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let\\nCanaan be their slave. Much of this is per-\\n(488)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0526.jp2"}, "527": {"fulltext": "Japheth and the Phoenicians\\nfectly plain. The inspired writer wishes to con-\\ndemn the immodesty and sexual immorality of\\nthe Canaanite, of which we have such terrible ex-\\namples in the earlier parts of the Old Testament.\\nAs Dillmann finely says, the fortunes of peo-\\nples are determined in accordance with their\\ndeeds. Our writer, then, justly traces the weak-\\nness and servility of the peoples of Canaan to\\ntheir unchastity and shameless customs, which\\nmade them an easy prey to nations more robust\\nthan themselves. As Canaan certainly repre-\\nsents the Canaanites, so by Shem, the blessed of\\nJahveh, we can understand nothing but the pro-\\ngenitor of Israel. The only question remaining\\nis, who was Japheth? We are accustomed, on\\nthe authority of the genealogical table, to regard\\nJapheth as the progenitor of the Indo-Germanic\\nfamily of the nations, but in this passage, which\\ndoes not extend its horizon beyond Palestine, the\\nIndo-Germanic race is not thought of. We must\\nthink rather of a Palestinian people closely re-\\nlated to Israel and the Canaanites. Japheth, in\\nall probability, was conceived as the ancestor of\\nthe Phoenicians. The Phoenicians, while speak-\\ning a dialect differing but little from the Hebrew\\nidiom, were decidedly superior to the other na-\\ntions of Canaan in natural endowment and in all\\nthe arts of civilization. As their interests seldom\\nclashed with those of the Hebrews, the two na-\\ntions as a rule were on the most friendly terms,\\nand our author prays that this friendship may be\\nperpetual. The Phoenicians, separated from the\\nrest of Palestine by a wall of lofty mountains,\\nwhich they had the good sense not to attempt to\\ncross, were a bulwark rather than a menace to", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0527.jp2"}, "528": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nIsrael. All their conquests were beyond the sea.\\nOn these the Hebrews could afford to look with\\ncomplacency. Hence the paternal blessing, in-\\nfluenced, doubtless, by a profound sense of kin-\\nship, God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in\\nthe tents of Shem.\\nIt is of interest to remember that the Greeks\\nalso possessed a myth of the discovery of the vine,\\nand that their myth was connected, though indi-\\nrectly, with the Flood. Hekataios informs us\\nthat a dog belonging to Orestheus (the mountain\\nman) brought him a twig from which the vine\\ngrew. According to Hekataios the genealogy is\\nDe-ucalion, the Flood hero Orestheus, the moun-\\ntaineer; Phytios, the vine grower, and Oineus,\\nthe wine man. Apollodorus,t however, relates\\nthe descent of Oineus differently. I have not\\nbeen able to find any Greek legend that accuses\\neither of these vine discoverers with being over-\\ncome by the effect of his discovery, but judging\\nfrom Oineus association with the wild orgies of\\nDionysos the thought is not far off.\\nAthen., 2, p. 35. f Apoll., Bib. i. 7.\\n(490)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0528.jp2"}, "529": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0529.jp2"}, "530": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0530.jp2"}, "531": {"fulltext": "The Descent of the Nations\\nChapter Twenty-two:\\nThe Tradition of the Tower of Babel\\nTHE tenth chapter of Genesis, which follows\\nthe story of the Flood, is one of the most\\nobscure portions of the whole Bible. It is not\\nonly obscure, it is for us indecipherable except\\nby conjecture. In that chapter the author wishes\\nto show how the earth was repeopled after the\\nDeluge. Accordingly he constructs a general\\nchart for the purpose of showing how the various\\nraces, peoples and tribes with which he was ac-\\nquainted descended from the three sons of Noah.\\nHe describes the relationships of the nations pre-\\ncisely as if they were individual men, and so in-\\ndeed he regards them. Mizraim, for example,\\nthe dual name which the Semitic nations be-\\nstowed on the two parts of Egypt, is plainly con-\\nceived as a man. One people is supposed to be\\nthe father, the grandfather or the great-grand-\\nfather of another. This comparison, however, is\\nmisleading. Individuals and generations suc-\\nceed one another in time, while races and peoples\\npossess at least some permanence. Yet I by no\\nmeans wish to imply that our author was not in-\\nfluenced by ancient tradition and to a certain ex-\\ntent by profound considerations of language and\\ncustom. The real difficulty is that we do not\\nknow many of the peoples to which he refers, or\\n(491)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0531.jp2"}, "532": {"fulltext": "A Map of the City of Babylon.", "height": "2441", "width": "2332", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0532.jp2"}, "533": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0533.jp2"}, "534": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwe know them only by conjecture. Who were\\nMagog and Elishah, and Tubal and Sabtecha?\\nProbably we shall never certainly discover. It\\nseems to me, therefore, perfectly useless to at-\\ntempt to discuss these problems within the brief\\ncompass of a lecture. I therefore refer you to the\\nmarvellous wealth of learning lavished on this\\ndifificult theme by Lenormant in the second and\\nthird volumes of his Les Origines (which, I\\nventure to say, not a dozen persons living have\\nread through), and I pass over this chapter alto-\\ngether. Instead of wearying you with conjec-\\ntures on mere names, I will conclude with a story\\nfull of life and energy, the last of those fascinating\\nnotices of the beginnings of human culture. In\\nthe eleventh chapter of Genesis we read\\nI, 2. The whole earth had but one speech and one kind of\\nwords. And it came to pass as they were journeying\\naround in the East that they found a low plain in the land\\nof Shinar [Mesopotamia] and settled there.\\n3. And they said to one another, Come now, let us\\nmake bricks and burn them hard. So brick served for\\nbuilding stones and asphalt for mortar,\\n4. And they said, Now, good! we will build us a city\\nand a tower with its top in the heavens [on the sky], and\\nwe will make us a monument so that we may not be scat-\\ntered over the whole earth.\\n5. Then Jahveh came down to inspect the city and the\\ntower which the children of men began to build.\\nHere something is evidently omitted. Jah-\\nveh s return to his lofty abode and the assembling\\nof his heavenly counsellors are not mentioned.\\n6. 7. And Jahveh said: One people are they, and they all\\nhave the same language, and this is [only] the beginning\\nof their doings, and soon they will be debarred from noth-\\ning which they wish to undertake. Come, now, let us de-\\nscend and confound their language, so that one shall not\\nbe able to understand the speech of another.\\n(492)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0534.jp2"}, "535": {"fulltext": "The Tower and the Flood\\nThis is one of the most distinctly polytheistic\\nverses in the Bible. It expresses not only Jah-\\nveh s need of taking counsel with his associates,\\nbut of securing their cooperation in the execu-\\ntion of his plan. It reminds us strikingly of the\\nconferences of the gods in Babylonian and Greek\\nmythology. This strange element (which one\\nfeels must come from a foreign source) disap-\\npears in the next verse. It is Jahveh alone who\\nreally acts.\\n8. So Jahveh scattered them abroad from thence over the\\nface of the whole earth, so that they left ofif building their\\ncity,\\n9. Therefore was it called Babel [confusion], because\\nthere Jahveh scattered them over the face of the whole\\nearth.\\nBefore we go any further we ought to deter-\\nmine at what point in the history of mankind this\\nsingular occurrence is supposed to have taken\\nplace. There is one great event in the Book of\\nGenesis which, so to speak, cuts the history of\\nthe world in two; that is the Flood, in which\\nalmost the whole human race is supposed to have\\nperished. How stands the Tower of Babel with\\nreference to the Flood? Strange to say, there\\nseems to be no relation between the two. The\\nTower of Babel could not have been erected be-\\nfore the Flood, for the very purpose of the story\\nis to show how the various nations and languages\\nnow in existence arose. Neither could the build-\\ning of the Tower and the miraculous dispersion\\nhave taken place after the Flood, for the author\\nof the tenth chapter, which also contains Jeho-\\nvistic material, has been at great pains to inform\\nus how all the nations known to him descended\\n(493)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0535.jp2"}, "536": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nfrom the three sons of Noah in a perfectly nat-\\nural and orderly manner, without a hint that the\\ndispersion of the nations was caused by so sin-\\ngular a miracle. What proves this conclusively\\nis the fact that in the tenth chapter the founding\\nof Babel is mentioned as an act of Nimrod, but no\\nallusion is made to the building of the Tower or\\nto the confusion of tongues. We are therefore\\nobliged to suppose that the story of the Tower of\\nBabel, like most ancient traditions of this sort, is\\ncomplete in itself, and was composed without\\nreference to the Flood. The only allusion to the\\ntime at which the event took place is a very gen-\\neral one, It came to pass as they were journey-\\ning around in the East. This reminds us of the\\nintroduction to the story of the Sons of God (a\\nnarrative of the same order), It came to pass as\\nmen began to multiply on the earth, and evi-\\ndently points to the earliest times. The whole\\nhuman family is still together, forming one\\nhorde, speaking one language, and without a\\nsettled habitation.\\nFrom the exclusive employment of the word\\nJahveh, it is evident that our narrative forms part\\nof the Jehovist s document. From certain verbal\\nindications, and more especially from its rehgious\\nconceptions, it appears to have been written by\\nthe author of the Garden of Eden narrative.\\nJahveh is conceived even more naively. The\\nconception of God, indeed, is one of the crud-\\nest in the whole Bible. Jahveh is obliged to\\ncome down from his lofty abode to see what\\nmen are really doing. His invitation to his com-\\npanions, Come, now, let us go down and con-\\nfound their language, is expressed in terms\\n(494)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0536.jp2"}, "537": {"fulltext": "No Babylonian Tradition\\nthat scarcely veil the polytheism of the thought.\\nMoreover, his naif fear of the invasion of his\\nrealm is stated with a candor that far surpasses\\nthe language of the Garden of Eden narrative.\\nThe question therefore arises, whether this is a\\nnative Hebrew tradition of great age, or whether\\nour author had before him a Babylonian legend\\nof somewhat the same scope, whose mythological\\nallusions were still cruder and more naif. I must\\nsay at the outset that the Babylonian legend of\\nthe Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues,\\nwhich George Smith thought he had discovered\\nand which Sayce has repeatedly announced, has\\nproved to contain no allusion whatever to either\\nof these myths, and up to this time no such\\nBabylonian tradition has been discovered. Aby-\\ndenus pretends to have found a description of the\\nTower of Babel in the history of Berosus, which\\nadds nothing to our story except that the Tower\\nwas destroyed by wind. But on this point the\\nsilence of Josephus is decisive. Several Sibylline\\npoems describing the Tower of Babel have fre-\\nquently been cited, but they also depend exclu-\\nsively on the story of Genesis, elaborated in the\\nmanner of the Jewish Haggada. There is no\\ndoubt that the Genesis narrative implies some\\nfamiliarity with the general conditions of ancient\\nBabylonia. The land of Shinar, which is properly\\ndescribed as a low-lying plain, is a Hebrew form\\nof the southern Babylonian shumir, sumer. The\\nconception of Babylonia as the dwelling place of a\\ncomposite population speaking Semitic and non-\\nSemitic languages, is also historically correct.\\nThe enormous ziggurats which once rose hun-\\n*Schrader, K. A. T., ii8.\\n(495)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0537.jp2"}, "538": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ndreds of feet into the air above low-lying Baby-\\nlonia, might well be described as towers, and the\\ndescription of their materials, burnt brick ce-\\nmented with asphalt, is also quite accurate.\\nThese, however, are points of general informa-\\ntion which would be known to people dwelling in\\nthe neighborhood of that country. On the other\\nhand, the purpose for which the Tower was\\nraised, almost as a defiance of Heaven, is alto-\\ngether opposed to the Babylonians conception\\nof their temples; and the care of the writer in\\ndescribing the building material also implies\\nthat he was a foreigner. A Babylonian writer\\nwould have taken the brick and the asphalt for\\ngranted. We also notice that a distinctively\\nHebrew word {chemar) is used for the asphalt,\\nnot the Babylonian kupru (Hebrew, kopher^ of\\nthe Flood story. In any case, the connection of\\nBabylon with the Confusion of Tongues never\\noriginated with a Babylonian writer, because it\\nrests on a misapprehension of the meaning of the\\nname of Babel. The writer of Genesis evidently\\nassociated Babel with the Hebrew word balbel\\n(from balla), which means about what we under-\\nstand by a babel of sound, whereas, according to\\nall scholars. Babel was really Bdb-il, or Bdb-Uu;\\nlater, Bdb-ildni, Gate of the Gods. The concep-\\ntion of Babylon as the first centre of humanity\\nmight be natural to a Babylonian writer, but not\\nthe idea that the first inhabitants were driven\\nabroad by a curse. It has been frequently con-\\njectured that the tower in question was the cel-\\nebrated tower of Borsippa, which, after lying in\\na state of decay for many generations, was re-\\nstored by Nebuchadnezzar. Although it is ob-\\n(496)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0538.jp2"}, "539": {"fulltext": "Analysis of Story\\njected that we ought to look in Babylon itself\\nrather than in Borsippa, for the site of our Tower\\nof Babel, it is tempting to suppose that our tra-\\ndition was suggested by this gigantic ruin, which\\nwas no longer employed for religious purposes,\\nand whose original use might have been forgot-\\nten. If any Babylonian tradition similar to ours\\nhad attached itself to this old ruin, we might well\\nexpect some allusion to it in Nebuchadnezzar s\\ndetailed account of the restoration of the build-\\ning. As to the discontinuance of the building of\\nthis temple in consequence of a divine warning\\nor a divine judgment, Nebuchadnezzar says noth-\\ning, but merely affirms that his god put it into his\\nheart to restore the temple which a former king\\nhad begun but had not finished. I do not there-\\nfore believe that any complete parallel to the\\naccount of the Tower of Babel existed in Baby-\\nlonian literature. If any story of this nature is\\nfound in Babylonia, it will lack several important\\nfeatures of our narrative, as Canon Cheyne\\nrightly affirms. We must therefore consider our\\nstory by itself.\\nShort as it is, this story is composite, and con-\\nsists of three distinct parts, w^hich I shall consider\\nseparately: (i) The myth of the confusion of\\ntongues and the dispersion of mankind; (2) the\\nfounding of the city of Babylon (3) the building\\nof the tower, which is closely connected with the\\nmyth.\\nI. It has been freely asserted, I know not on\\nwhat authority, that the myth of the confusion\\nof tongues, in connection with the erection of a\\ntower or pyramid, is not an uncommon tradition\\namong the various nations of the earth. I ob-\\n32 (497)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0539.jp2"}, "540": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nserve, however, that the authors of statements\\nto this effect do not seem to be very sure of their\\nground. Cheyne asserts that one of the best\\nauthenticated examples of this was found by Liv-\\ningstone in Africa. On turning to Livingstone,\\nI see that he says he has come across a story\\nsimilar to that of the Tower of Babel, but he\\nomits to tell us what that story is, and we are\\ntherefore unable to judge as to its merits or\\nits source. t Andrew White, J who, in 1896,\\nought not to have repeated Sayce s fable of the\\nTower of Babel, cites among other authorities\\nfor this opinion, Brinton, Franz Delitzsch and\\nJohn Fiske. Brinton, however, dismisses the\\nsubject by saying that the American myth of the\\nconfusion of tongues is of doubtful authentic-\\nity Delitzsch II says pointedly that up to this\\ntime no independent parallel has been discovered\\nin profane literature and John Fiske |f merely\\ncompares the play on the word Babel with a sim-\\nilar mythical pun on Antwerp. Liiken, whose\\nwork on the Traditions of Mankind would be\\nof incomparable interest were it not written in\\na spirit of childish credulity, discovers parallels\\nArt. Babel in Encyc. Biblica.\\nf Missionary Travels, Harper Bros., 1858, p. 567. From\\nthe fact that Livingstone mentions on the same page a native\\nstory resembling that of Solomon and the harlots, and as he tells\\nus he found traces of European traders among this tribe, we\\nmay suspect Biblical influence, as he evidently suspected it.\\nX Warfare of Science, etc., ii. 173. I cannot help express-\\ning my surprise at Dr. White s treatment of this subject. So far\\nas I can ascertain, he bases his argument almost exclusively on\\nthe unscientific work of T. W. Doane, Bible Myths, and does\\nnot even take the trouble to verify Doane s references to obsolete\\nworks.\\nMyths of the New World, 240.\\nII Neuer Commentar liber die Genesis, 233.\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0JT Myths and Mythmakers, 72.\\n(498)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0540.jp2"}, "541": {"fulltext": "Myths of Confusion of Tongues\\nto the Tower of Babel from one end of the world\\nto the other, in ancient and modern literatures.\\nBut all his examples that I have been able to\\nverify either fade away utterly or reduce them-\\nselves to faint and shadowy resemblances.* So\\nfar as I have been able to ascertain, independent\\nmyths of the confounding of tongues are by no\\nmeans common. Grimm, for example, in his\\ngreat Deutsche Mythologie, cites no instance\\nof confusion of tongues (sprachverwirrung).\\nThe best authenticated instances of such a tradi-\\ntion, I suppose, are those of the Mexicans and\\nof neighboring American tribes, at which I shall\\nnow glance.\\nA Flood tradition of the Toltecs mentioned by\\nIxtHhochitl states that after the Deluge men built\\na zacuali of great height to preserve them in the\\nevent of future deluges. After this their tongue\\nbecame confused, and not understanding each\\nother, they went to different parts of the\\nworld. t This Flood story bears unmistakable\\nresemblances to Genesis, even in the incident of\\nthe water standing fifteen cubits over the moun-\\ntains. In general, I would say that any so-called\\nparallel to the Tower of Babel narrative that is\\nclosely connected with the story of the Flood (as\\nE. g., the Persian Tradition of Babel reduces itself to the\\nfact that in the reign of King Takhmorup (Tahmuraf) men are\\nsaid to have passed on the back of the ox, Sursaok, to other re-\\ngions Bundahesh, ch. xvii. 4), which is at most a tradition of\\ndispersion. Gerstacker s Australian Language Myth and\\nKohl s Cooking of Languages bear not the slightest resem-\\nblance to the Tower of Babel. In Gerstacker, an old woman\\ndies and is eaten, and those who eat different parts of her body\\nspeak different languages.\\nf Quoted by Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,\\nvol. V. 18-21.\\n(499)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0541.jp2"}, "542": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nare several Mexican tales, the story of the tower\\nof Conan in Ireland, the tradition of the\\nBasques,* etc.), ought on its face to be re-\\njected. In Genesis the connection between\\nthe Flood and the Tower of Babel, as we have\\nshown, is purely fortuitous, and the recurrence\\nof this connection in other literatures is proof\\npositive that the tradition is not original. From\\nthe regions of Arizona and New Mexico, among\\nthe curious myths related of Montezuma, we\\nread that this legendary hero once attempted to\\nbuild a vast house which should reach to Heaven\\nitself. The Great Spirit, irritated by his under-\\ntaking, sent an insect flying to the East, which\\nbrought the Spaniards. There is no very strik-\\ning resemblance between this story and ours, be-\\nyond the attempt to scale Heaven. Yet the fact\\nthat the very name of Montezuma is supposed to\\nhave been introduced into America by the Span-\\niards renders the myths related of him obnoxious\\nto the suspicion of Christian influence. f\\nStill another Mexican tradition is related of a\\ncertain giant Xelhua, the architect, who, after the\\nDeluge, built an artificial mountain at Cholula\\nas a memorial of the mountain that had shel-\\ntered him. As the huge pyramid rose slowly to\\nthe sky, the anger of the gods awoke. They\\nlaunched fire on the builders and the work\\nceased. This legend contains no allusion to the\\nconfusion of tongues.\\nBy far the most celebrated of all these Mexi-\\ncan Flood and Babel traditions is that of Coxcox,\\nSee Luken, Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts,\\n316 ff.\\nf See Bancroft, op. cit., iii. p. 77.\\n(500)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0542.jp2"}, "543": {"fulltext": "Babel Tradition of Mexico\\nwhich I have already discussed. After the Flood,\\nit is said, the children of Coxcox and Xochi-\\nquetzal were born dumb, and a dove came and\\ngave them innumerable languages. Only fifteen\\nof the descendants of Coxcox, who afterward\\nbecame heads of famiHes, spoke the same lan-\\nguage or could understand each other. Ban-\\ncroft, relying on the authority of Don Jose Fer-\\nnando Ramirez, Conservator of the Mexican\\nNational Museum, beheves that the whole story\\nof the escape of Coxcox in a flood, the multipli-\\ncation of languages, etc., rests on a false interpre-\\ntation of the Mexican picture-writings. Rami-\\nrez asserts that these picture-writings, from\\nwhich such wonderful tales have been con-\\nstructed by von Humboldt, Clavigero, Kings-\\nborough and others, really relate nothing more\\nthan a migration of the Mexicans along the Mex-\\nican valley. The little bird merely says, Let us\\ngo the boat, the mountain, etc., are only\\nhieroglyphic signs indicating proper names.*\\nIf this be true, as Brinton also seems to think,t\\nthe Mexican story of the Tower of Babel, and\\nwith it the most popular Mexican Flood story,\\ncollapses.\\nThere are, however, two conceptions contained\\nin the Tower of Babel narrative which are widely\\ndiffused. One is the attempt of mortals or giants\\nto scale Heaven, and the other is the tradition\\nthat all men originally spoke the same language.\\nAs to the first, it is enough to remind ourselves of\\nthe Greek stories of the Titans and the Aloadse.\\nThe Titans attempt to storm heaven belongs\\nSee Bancroft, op. cit,, iii. pp. 67, 68.\\nf Myths of the New World, 240-1.\\n(501)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0543.jp2"}, "544": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nrather to the mythical cycle of Tiamat and Rahab.\\nIt is the revolt of the elements, the resistance of\\nthe wild, uncurbed forces of Nature to the reign\\nof law. The Aloadse, Otos and Ephialtes, at-\\ntempted to pile Ossa on Olympus and Pelion on\\nOssa, and so to rise to the gods. On account\\nof their youth, they were not able to execute their\\ndesign, and Apollo killed them.* Whether we\\nregard them with Creutzer as revolutions of the\\nearth, as light deities, or as forces of Nature, they\\nbear shght resemblance to the heroes of the\\nTower of Babel.\\nThe closest parallel to the Tower of Babel that\\nI have been able to find in Hindu literature is the\\nattempt of the Asuras to imitate the great fire\\naltar of the gods. This fire altar, which is de-\\nscribed at wearisome length in the Satapatha\\nBrahmana, is represented as rising from the earth\\nto Heaven. The Asuras, the enemies of the\\nheavenly gods, tried to imitate it, and, as we are\\nrepeatedly assured, their undertaking came to\\nnothing. Dr. Hopkins kindly informs me that\\nwhen their altar nearly reached the sky, the gods\\noverthrew it by withdrawing one of its founda-\\ntion bricks. The description of this event runs\\nas follows:\\nThe Asuras then constructed the fire-altar think-\\ning, Thereby shall we ascend to the sky. Indra then con-\\nsidered, If they construct that [fire-altar] they will cer-\\ntainly prevail over us. He secured a brick and proceeded\\nthither, passing himself ofif for a Brahman. Hark ye,\\nhe said, I, too, will put on this brick for myself. Very\\nwell, they replied. He put it on. That fire [altar] of\\ntheirs wanted but very little to be completely built up.\\nThen he said, I shall take back this [brick] which be-\\nlongs to me. He took hold of it and pulled it out; and on\\nHomer s Iliad, 5, 385 ff., and Od. 11, 305.\\n(502)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0544.jp2"}, "545": {"fulltext": "Hindu and African Babel Myths\\nits being pulled out, the fire-altar fell down; and along with\\nthe falling fire-altar the Asuras fell down. He then con-\\nverted those bricks into thunderbolts and clove the\\n[Asuras walls.*\\nIn one place in the Satapatha Brahmana f\\nthe failure of the Asuras is attributed to the\\nfact that they did not lay the bricks of their\\naltar after the manner of the gods. It is\\nalso said that the Asuras built themselves three\\ncastles an iron one in this world, a silver one\\nin the air and a golden one in the sky J\\nwhich the gods besieged and overthrew. It is\\nalso stated in another place that the gods de-\\nprived the Asuras of speech. These resem-\\nblances, however, are very remote. The mar-\\nvellous story of the Hindu world-tree described\\nas a source of confusion of tongues and disper-\\nsion (which Dr. White borrows from Doane, and\\nDoane from Baring-Gould, and Baring-Gould\\nfrom Niklas MiillerU), appears to be a modern\\nfable. At least, Dr. Hopkins informs me that he\\nhas no knowledge of it in Sanskrit literature.\\nOne of the best primitive stories bearing on\\nthis theme which I have been able to discover, is\\ncontained in Petermann s Mittheilungen. The\\ntale comes from Akwapim land,1j in Africa. It\\nis true, the collection of folk lore in which this\\nstory occurs was communicated by a Christian\\nmissionary, but the other myths and legends\\ncontained in it seem to be quite original.\\nSat. Brahm., ii. i, 2, 13-16.\\nX Ibid, viii. 4, 4, 3.\\nX Ibid. iii. 4, 4, 3 and 4.\\nIbid. iii. 2, i, 23.\\nII Warfare of Science, ii. p. 171 Doane s Bible Myths,\\n36 Baring-Gould s Legends of the Patriarchs, 148.\\nNorth of Akkra, and belonging to Ashantee.\\n(503)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0545.jp2"}, "546": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nThe negroes relate that their old ancestors used to tell\\nthem they once wished to undertake something which\\nshould enable them to rise to Nyankupon [the high town\\nor heaven]. To carry out this project they heaped up all\\ntheir fufu mortars [fufu is a favorite dish composed of\\nyams or pisang fruit beaten into pulp]. One more mortar\\nwas necessary to reach up, but they had not another one.\\nThen they decided to draw out the lowest mortar and to\\nplace it on top. They did so, and behold, the whole struc-\\nture fell in a heap, and they escaped death only by running\\naway. In their sudden terror they spoke new languages.\\nHence it comes about that so many tongues are spoken.\\nFormerly there was only one speech.*\\nThis is either the Hebrew story profoundly\\ntransformed, or a very curious parallel to it.\\nThe belief that all men originally spoke one\\nlanguage is so natural that we might expect to\\nfind it widely diffused. In Genesis it is tacitly\\nassumed that Hebrew was the language of God,\\nof Paradise and of the earliest human beings.\\nWhat an incredible amount of talent and labor\\nhas been bestowed to prove this thesis true!\\nNowhere in the world do we find this conviction\\nmore firmly established than in Egypt. The\\nEgyptians, hke the Hebrews, beheved that their\\nlanguage was, in a peculiar sense, the language\\nof Heaven. This is proved by many statements\\nof pyramid-texts. The very language of these\\ntexts, the so-called hieroglyphic language which\\ndiffered widely from the spoken and written ver-\\nnacular, was called the language of God. f\\nThe Chinese, Hkewise, entertained a similar con-\\nception of their tongue. Plato, in the oft-cited\\npassage of Politicus, in his beautiful myth of\\nMittheilung aus Justus Perthes Geog. Anstalt, von Dr. A.\\nPetermann, Gotha, 1856, S. 466.\\nf See Brugsch Bey, Steinschrift und Bibelwort, S. 42.\\nt P. 372. _____\\n(504)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0546.jp2"}, "547": {"fulltext": "Examples from Greek Literature\\nthe children of Kronos, assumes that all human\\nbeings were once able to converse with one an-\\nother and also with the animals. This, however,\\ntook place in a former cycle of time, which was\\nended by a world catastrophe. In ^schylus\\nPrometheus there is a highly scientific ac-\\ncount of the process of civilization and the begin-\\nnings of culture, in which the invention o f letters\\nis ascribed to Prometheus. Perhaps the closest\\nparallel in Greek Hterature to the problem of the\\nTower of Babel is Herodotus celebrated story\\nof the Egyptian king Psammetichus.f Psam-\\nmetichus, you will remember, in order to ascer-\\ntain which was the original human language,\\ncaused two children to be brought up absolutely\\nout of sound of the human voice. The first sound\\nthey uttered was bekos, which was regarded as\\nthe Phrygian word for bread. Phrygian, there-\\nfore, was considered to be the original language\\nof man. From the selection of Phrygian as the\\noriginal language rather than the manifestly\\nolder Egyptian tongue, it would seem that the\\nexperiment was actually made as Herodotus de-\\nscribes it. In any case, we have here a plain\\nallusion to an ancient belief in one universal,\\noriginal language. But we may assume that if\\nHerodotus had been aware of any other legend\\nsimilar to that of the Tower of Babel, he would\\nhave related it here. Pliny, in several passages,\\nrefers to the astonishing diversity of human lan-\\nguages, but offers no theory to account for their\\norigin.\\n440-483. f Book ii. ch. 2.\\nJ I am indebted for these allusions to the kindness of a thor-\\nough student of classical literature, my friend, Dr. J. H. McDan-\\niels. Professor of Greek in Hobart College.\\n(5^5)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0547.jp2"}, "548": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nIn the Old Testament, community of speech\\nand intercourse has a decidedly religious mean-\\ning. Not to be able to understand another is, if\\nnot exactly a curse, a punishment.* In our\\nstory the confusion of tongues is regarded in\\nthat light. The prophets f look forward to\\nthe time when the dispersed of the Gentiles\\nshall flock from the four winds to the Mount of\\nJahveh, when the veil shall be taken away\\nand the whole world shall hear the voice of\\nGod and shall speak one language. J This hope\\nwas believed to be realized on the day of Pente-\\ncost, when representatives of every nation heard\\nthe Apostles speak every man in his own\\ntongue. We remember, also, that the inter-\\npretation of tongues was one of the peculiar\\ngifts of the Holy Ghost, and, in the light of this\\nold tradition, we can better understand the nature\\nof the mysterious gift of tongues. Now, there is\\na very curious conception running through the\\nZend Avesta, even in its oldest parts. Few\\nnames occur more frequently in the Avesta than\\nSraosha, one of the chief spirits in the service of\\nAhura Mazda. His name is translated Listen-\\ning obedience. Burnouf af^rms that the word\\nincludes the ideas of listening, obedience and\\nDeut. xxviii. 49 Jer. v. 15.\\nf Is. xix. 18.\\nX The Zoroastrians likewise entertained the belief that one uni-\\nversal language would come into being at the Resurrection. It\\nis said in Denkart (2, 81, 6) that all men will become of one\\nvoice, and administer praise to Ahuramazd and the archangels.\\nSo also Plutarch in the Isis and Osiris (47, 9) says The earth\\nwill become smooth and level there will be one life and one state\\nof all mankind, who are then blessed, and have one speech.\\nI am indebted for these two references to the kindness of Dr.\\nA. V. Williams Jackson of Columbia University.\\nCommentaire sur le Ya9na, p. 42.\\n(506)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0548.jp2"}, "549": {"fulltext": "Counterpart of Babel Myth\\nspeech. He is the incarnation of the word of\\nGod. The Word of God is his body. He re-\\nceives and transmits the word of Ahura Mazda.\\nHe it is who makes the word of God intelHgible\\nto men. In short, the doctrine of the Word which\\nappears in so many hteratures is the very anti-\\nthesis to the Babel of Genesis, the necessary re-\\nligious counterpart to the confusion of tongues.\\nA similar conception was entertained by the\\nBuddhists of India. When Buddha preached to\\nthousands and tens of thousands, whatever their\\nnationality, all comprehended him, and every one\\nfelt that Buddha was addressing him alone. The\\nvery animals understood him. You will observe\\nthat Plato also speaks of animals as understand-\\ning the speech of men, and in the Garden of Eden\\nalso this seems to have been the case. The ani-\\nmals received their names from Adam, and the fact\\nthat Jahveh brought them to him to see if among\\nthem a helpmate might be found for him, seems to\\nimply that Adam could communicate with them.\\nAt all events, the conversation of the serpent ex-\\ncites no surprise, and is accepted as a matter of\\ncourse. Before the dispersion Jahveh is repre-\\nsented as speaking to different men, even to sin-\\nners like Cain, and as speaking Hebrew.* But\\nafter the confusion of tongues he speaks only\\nto the chosen descendants of Shem, to Abraham\\nand his seed, while to the other members of the\\nhuman race he is dumb.\\nHe has made known his word to Jacob,\\nHis laws and statutes unto Israel:\\nThat Hebrew was conceived as the original language of the\\nworld is proved by such plays on words as are contained in the\\nnames of Eve, Cain, Seth, etc.\\n(507)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0549.jp2"}, "550": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nNot thus has he dealt with any other people,\\nNo other knows his commandments.*\\nThe Parsees also spoke of birds as the\\ntongues of the gods who spoke the language of\\nheaven, and who at the bidding of the Magi ut-\\ntered the word of righteousness to the king of\\nBabylon.f The belief in a universal language,\\nunderstood even by animals, seems to have been\\nnot uncommon in antiquity. What rendered this\\nbelief religious is the fact that this language was\\nconceived as the language of Heaven. In this\\ntongue God spoke to men, and, when the lan-\\nguages were confounded, the majority could no\\nlonger understand Him and their religious fel-\\nlowship was broken. This thought is plainly\\nbrought out in our narrative, especially if we con-\\nsider this chapter of Genesis in the light of the\\nbelief entertained at the time it was written; and\\nit invests the myth with a religious meaning\\nwhich, so far as I know, has not been recognized.\\n2. The founding of Babylon.\\nWe pass now to the second element of this\\nnarrative. Why the confusion of tongues and\\nthe consequent dispersion of the human race were\\nassociated with Babylon it is not difficult to see.\\nThe city of Babylon, although probably not the\\noldest city of Babylonia, is old enough to be re-\\ngarded by the Hebrews as the first rallying point\\nof the human race. In the bilingual Creation tab-\\nlet it is spoken of as coeval with Erech and Nip-\\npur, cities which existed before the dawn of his-\\ntory.J At the time of the composition of this\\nPs. cxlvii. 19, 20. See also Deut. iv. 7 and 8.\\nf Philostratus Vit. ApoUonii, i. 25.\\nX Encyc. Bib., art. Babylon.\\n(5^8)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0550.jp2"}, "551": {"fulltext": "The First Cities\\nportion of Genesis, its commanding importance\\nwould cause Babylon to be preferred to other\\ncities as the first centre of mankind. It is true,\\ncities have been mentioned before the Flood, but\\nthese cities naturally cannot be identified. This\\ntradition, therefore, is that the first actual city of\\nthe world was Babylon, and that the founding of\\nBabylon marks the transition from a nomadic to\\na settled life.\\nWhy is it that among the mythical recollec-\\ntions of our own family of the nations we find no\\nsuch tradition as this? Obviously because in\\nthe most ancient times our Aryan ancestors pos-\\nsessed no cities. The Romans had a singular\\nand interesting story to tell of Romulus and the\\nfounding of Rome. The Greeks possessed tra-\\nditions of the founding of Athens and other\\ncities. But neither Greeks nor Romans pre-\\ntended that their cities were the first cities, be-\\ncause they knew better. As late as the first cen-\\ntury after Christ, when our Teutonic forefathers\\ncame under the eye of the Roman historian Taci-\\ntus, they were still wandering without a perma-\\nnent abode. The plain fact is that from time im-\\nmemorial the Babylonians had cities and lived in\\nthem, and this fact is the key to their wonderful\\ndevelopment of all the arts and sciences of civ-\\nilization, which passed from Babylon to the rest\\nof the world. On this point Ihering s arguments\\nare decisive, one or two of which I here repro-\\nduce. The motive given by our author for the\\nbuilding of the first city is that it may be a place\\nof permanent abode. This motive is absolutely\\ncorrect. The more man puts into the soil the\\nmore firmly he is anchored to it. Nowhere in\\n(509)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0551.jp2"}, "552": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nthe world is the contrast between a wandering\\nlife and a settled life in cities more striking than\\nin America. Our ancestors very soon made per-\\nmanent abodes for themselves. When it was pos-\\nsible they built cities, and those cities proved to\\nbe centres of civilization, which in an incredibly\\nshort time have transformed this continent. In\\na city, as Ihering says, a thousand times, ten\\nthousand times as much is entrusted to the soil\\nas in an agricultural district of the same area.\\nTherefore every city is built for eternity. No\\npeople ever abandoned a city it once inhabited\\nunless compelled to do so by the most terrible\\nmisfortunes. We know the strange and sad im-\\npression produced on us by a deserted village, a\\nhamlet, a few houses; but a great city voluntarily\\nforsaken by its inhabitants no one has ever\\nseen.\\nThe second great result of the city is the de-\\nvelopment of the arts of civilization. The very\\nword civilization means the condition of life in\\ncities. Outside the charmed sphere of religion\\nand poetry, few important discoveries have been\\nmade by nomadic peoples. Why is it then that\\nour author regards the building of the first city\\nwith so much dislike? First, I believe, because\\nthe ways of city life were strange to him. He\\nbelonged to a people that only recently had\\nemerged from its pastoral stage. All their\\nfondest associations were with a simple pastoral\\nlife, a life so exquisitely portrayed in the biog-\\nraphies of Abraham, Jacob, Moses and the youth-\\nful David. The Hebrews in the Jehovist s day\\npossessed no great cities, and but one small tem-\\nple; they had no science, no art, and little worldly", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0552.jp2"}, "553": {"fulltext": "Hebrew Dislike of Cities\\nknowledge. But they possessed a conception of\\nGod and the moral life of man which their more\\ncivilized neighbors never attained. Their God,\\nwhether He was called Elohim or Jahveh, was\\ndestined to become the absolute and sole God of\\nthe universe, the God whom all men who are not\\nheathen adore, whether they call themselves\\nChristians, Jews or Mohammedans.\\nWe should remember also what civilization\\nmeant in those days. The two forms of civiliza-\\ntion best known to the Hebrew were the Baby-\\nlonian and the Phoenician, and to his simple and\\nserious way of looking on life their cities seemed\\nthe very dens of impurity. Both these nations\\npossessed enormous riches, but in a life without\\nideals, riches lead to corruption. They had re-\\nHgions fascinating to the vulgar on account of\\nthe splendor of their ceremonies and the sensual\\nintoxication of their rites. But to the eye of the\\nstern Hebrew monotheist a large part of these\\nreligions seemed a tissue of ridiculous and de-\\ngrading falsehoods. They possessed an art\\nwithout beauty, used to depict a multitude\\nof gods and goddesses whose very names\\nsounded abominably in his ears. They had mag-\\nnificent temples, but those temples were the seat\\nof an impure service. In short, the pious and\\nthoughtful Israelite found in the cities with\\nwhich he was acquainted little to admire and\\nmuch to condemn. Comparing the life of his civ-\\nilized contemporaries with his own traditions, he\\nfelt that every step taken in this direction was an\\naffront to God. This may account for the atti-\\ntude of our writer toward the city of Babylon,\\nwhich fascinated and terrified him.\\n(Sii)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0553.jp2"}, "554": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n3. The Tower of Babel.\\nThe motives which led our author to associate\\nthe confusion of tongues and the subsequent dis-\\npersion of the human race with the building of a\\ntower, are not so apparent. The reasons why\\nBabylon was selected as the scene of the disper-\\nsion have already been given. As we have seen,\\nthey rest on good and genuine tradition. The\\nassociation of the myth of the confusion of\\ntongues with a tower in Babylon, however, seems\\nto have been more fortuitous. The Babylonian\\nstyle of architecture, which was unique, must\\nhave struck the Hebrews with surprise. In par-\\nticular their gigantic ziggurats,^ or temple\\ntowers, which dotted the low plain of Babylonia\\nlike mountains, seemed to them too vast to be\\nnormal, while their great age was very apparent.\\nThe Hebrews, therefore, were inclined to refer\\nthem to a more powerful race of beings, or to\\nmen living under different conditions from those\\nwhich now prevail. The thought might also\\noccur, if men performed such feats in the infancy\\nof the race, what might not such proud and dar-\\ning beings have undertaken if their pride had\\nbeen allowed to develop unshackled? Towers so\\nhigh seemed almost an insult to Jahveh, and as if\\nintended to invade his domain. We know very\\nwell the impression made by the great architec-\\ntural monuments of the past, especially on peo-\\nZiggurat is a Babylonian word, now generally employed to\\ndescribe the huge pyramidal structures which rose above certain\\nBabylonian temples. It must not be supposed that all Babylo-\\nnian and Assyrian temples were built with ziggnrats. On the\\ncontrary, the number of temples which once bore these gigantic\\nsuperstructures is relatively small. See Dr. J. P. Peters, Jour-\\nnal of Bib. Lit., 1896, p. 107.", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0554.jp2"}, "555": {"fulltext": "Origin of the Story of Babel\\npie who had no sense of their original purpose.\\nHow many legends arose during the Middle\\nAges to account for the buildings of pagan Rome!\\nWhat emotions have not been caused by the sight\\nof a number of large stones laid in a circle Much\\nmore were the gigantic temple-towers of Baby-\\nlonia calculated to strike astonishment into the\\nheart of the Bedouin of the desert, or the pastoral\\ntribes of Canaan. Having only the faintest idea\\nof the purpose of these strange structures, the\\nHebrews naturally invented the most singular\\nstories to account for them. Some one ruined\\nor incomplete ziggurat (it is hard not to think of\\nBorsippa) seems to have been the historical nu-\\ncleus of the story of the Tower of Babel. Such\\na work must have required the strength of a\\nunited humanity, which would have carried its\\nbold project to completion had it not been foiled\\nby Heaven. The last incentive, in fact, to the\\nformation of the narrative, would be furnished by\\nthe conglomeration of races which from the\\nearHest times jostled one another in Babylon,*\\nand by the name of the city itself, whose mean-\\ning, as we have seen, the Hebrews wholly mis-\\ntook.\\nWhat particular structure suggested this nar-\\nrative we cannot say. An interesting Septuagint\\nreading of Isaiah x. 9 mentions the country\\nIt is very evident that previous to the Exile the Hebrews\\nwere totally ignorant of the languages of Babylonia and Assyria.\\nThis fact Jeremiah employs to add terror to the approach of the\\ninvader. Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from afar,\\nHouse of Israel. It is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a\\nnation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest\\nwhat they say. Jer. v. 15. Deut. (xxviii. 49) also speaks of a\\nnation as swift as the eagle flieth, whose tongue thou shalt not\\nunderstand.\\n33 (513)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0555.jp2"}, "556": {"fulltext": "Genesis in tHE Light of Modern Knowledge\\n(514)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0556.jp2"}, "557": {"fulltext": "Various Mounds\\nabove Babylon and Calneh (an unknown city-\\nnear Babylon), where the tower was built.\\nNothing, however, can be inferred from this at\\npresent. Among the various mounds associated\\nBIRS-NIMRUD\\nat different times with the Tower of Babel\\nare\\n1. Tell-Nimrud, west of Bagdad (Balbi, Fitch\\nand John Cartwright).\\n2. The great mound now called Babil on the\\nleft bank of the Euphrates, in the northern quar-\\nter of the city.\\n3. The so-called Birs-Nimrud of Borsippa,\\n(515)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0557.jp2"}, "558": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nwhich lay at the southwest corner of the city\\nproper.\\n4. More recently the hill called Amran Ibn\\nAli, south of the so-called palace. Only the\\nlast three need be considered. Of these, Babil\\nis said by travellers to be the most impos-\\ning. It still rises, according to Oppert, forty\\nmetres above the surface, and is over five hundred\\nfeet long. Oppert believes it to be identical with\\nthe temple destroyed by Xerxes, which Strabo\\ncalled Belus tomb. Its sheer form renders this\\nprobable. Schrader is of the opinion that this\\nmound represents the great temple of Babylon,\\noriginally called E-sagila, or lofty temple. It is\\ntrue, Strabo speaks of this temple as dedicated\\nto Bel, while E-sagila was really a shrine of\\nMerodach, as we know from the inscriptions.!\\nIt is well known, however, that the name Bel, or\\nlord, was applied to Merodach as a title of honor.\\nRawlinson s idea that Babil is the Temple of\\nBelus, described by Herodotus, is incorrect, as\\nSchrader shows, for Babil displays no signs of the\\nterraced stories of which Herodotus speaks, and,\\nmoreover, it lies on the left (east) bank of the\\nEuphrates, on the same side as the royal palace,\\nwhereas Herodotus states that the river flowed\\nbetween these buildings. How old Babil may be\\n(still supposing it to be identical with the great\\nE-sagila) J we can only conjecture. We know\\nfrom Nebuchadnezzar s inscription that it was\\nrestored by him. It is mentioned a hundred years\\nearlier by Tiglath-pileser III. and Asarhaddon,\\nthe latter of whom found it in a dilapidated con-\\nSee his fine article, Babel, in Riehm s Handworterbuch.\\nf Collect. Ea. India House, col. ii. 40 ff. iii. i ff.\\n(1^6)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0558.jp2"}, "559": {"fulltext": "BiRS-NlMRUD\\ndition and rebuilt it. Dr. Peters, standing on\\nthis mound in 1889, picked up a brick bearing\\nthe inscription Nabopolassar. We may sup-\\npose it to have been a very ancient sanctuary.\\nRichjf however^ beHeved that the mound Babil\\nis rather to be associated with the celebrated\\nhanging gardens of Babylon, and since Rassam\\nhas discovered four wells of granite one hundred\\nand forty feet deep beneath this mound, which\\nit may be presumed were used to water the gar-\\ndens, this opinion has gained ground. If, how-\\never, we give up Babil as the site of the Temple\\nof Belus {E-sagila), we must then look for the re-\\nmains of that great building in the mounds of Am-\\nran ben AH, or El Kasr, where, so far as I know,\\nnothing of consequence has as yet been found.\\nI turn then to the celebrated Birs-Nimrud, or\\nNimrod Tower of Borsippa, which lies on the\\nother side of Babylon in a suburb called Barsip,\\nor Borsippa, but, according to Schrader, still\\nwithin the southwest angle of the wall. After\\nBabil, this is, perhaps, the chief ruin of the\\ncity. It consists of a great mound of yellow sand\\nand brick which, according to Layard, still rises\\n198 feet above the earth. Its upper surface is\\nsurmounted by massive brick walls, 37 feet\\nhigh and 28 feet thick, so that its total height is\\nabout 235 feet. Its original height is estimated\\nthus Base, 75 feet, plus seven stories of 25 feet\\neach, making 250 feet.J The terraced formation\\nJournal of Bib. Lit., 1896, p. 106.\\nf C. J. Rich, on the topography of ancient Babylon, in his\\nBabylon and Persepolis, London, 1839. See pp. 43-104 and\\n107-179-\\nX It is astonishing- that in all these centuries this great mass of\\nbrick has subsided so little.\\n(517)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0559.jp2"}, "560": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nof its several stories is still visible, especially on\\nthe eastern and southern sides. It is believed by\\nmost scholars that this temple was the subject of\\nHerodotus celebrated account. Although he\\ncalls it a Temple of Belus, this is to be explained\\nas above. The sanctuary really was consecrated\\nto Nebo and bore the name I-bitu, or E-bitu,\\nfortunate or firm house. This temple,\\nafter having been in a decayed condition for\\nages, was restored by Nebuchadnezzar about the\\nmiddle of the sixth century B.C. About a hun-\\ndred years later it was seen and described (as we\\nbeheve) by Herodotus in the following words\\nIn the middle of the enclosure was a tower of solid\\nmasonry, a stadium [606 feet] in length and breadth, upon\\nwhich was raised a second tower and on that a third, and\\nso on up to the eighth. The ascent to the top is on the\\noutside by a path which winds around all the towers.\\nWhen one is about half way up one finds a resting place\\nand seats. On the topmost tower there is a spa-\\ncious temple and inside the temple a couch of unusual size\\nrichly adorned, with a golden table by its side. There is\\nno statue of any kind set up in the place, nor is the cham-\\nber occupied by anyone but a single native woman, who,\\nas the Chaldeans, the priests of this god affirm, is chosen\\nfor himself by the deity out of all the women of the land.f\\nNebuchadnezzar s own account of the restora-\\ntion of his several temples, found in the ziggurat\\nHerodotus account of Babylon, i. 178-187. See also J. Briill s\\nHerodot s Bab. Nachrichten, Aachen, 1878.\\nf The religious origin of these singular structures seems to have\\nbeen somewhat as follows The Babylonians, like other Semitic\\npeoples, conceived of their gods as inhabiting lofty mountains.\\nAs the low plain of Babylonia contains no mountains, it was\\nnecessary to build them, since it did not seem possible that the\\ngods would descend to men in the plain. These buildings, there-\\nfore, may indicate that the Babylonians were originally a moun-\\ntain-dwelling people.\\n(5^8)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0560.jp2"}, "561": {"fulltext": "Nebuchadnezzar s Inscription\\nBirs-Nimrud by Sir Henry Rawlinson, is as fol-\\nlows\\nNebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, the rightful ruler,\\nthe expression of the righteous heart of Marduk, the ex-\\nalted high priest, the beloved of Nebo, the wise prince,\\nwho devotes his care to the affairs of the great gods, the\\nunwearying ruler, the restorer of Esagila and Ezida, the\\nson and heir of Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, am I.\\nMarduk, the great god, formed me aright and commis-\\nsioned me to perform his restoration; Nebo, guider of the\\nuniverse of heaven and earth, placed in my hand the right\\nsceptre; Esagila, the house of heaven and earth, the abode\\nof Marduk, lord of the gods, Ekua, the sanctuary of his\\nlordship, I adorned gloriously with shining gold. Ezida\\nI built anew, and completed its construction with silver,\\ngold, precious stones, bronze, musukkani wood and cedar\\nwood. Timinanki, the ziggurat of Babylon, I built and\\ncompleted; of bricks glazed with lapis-lazuli (blue) I\\nerected its summit.\\nAt that time the house of the seven divisions of heaven\\nand earth, the ziggurat of Borsippa, which a former king\\nhad built and carried up to the height of forty-two ells,\\nbut the summit of which he had not erected, was long since\\nfallen into decay, and its water conduits had become use-\\nless; rain storms and tempests had penetrated its unbaked\\nbrick-work; the bricks which cased it were bulged out, the\\nunbaked bricks of its terraces were converted into rubbish\\nheaps. The great lord Marduk moved my heart to rebuild\\nit. Its place I changed not and its foundation I altered\\nnot. In a lucky month, on an auspicious day, I rebuilt the\\nunbaked bricks of its terraces and its encasing bricks,\\nwhich were broken away, and I raised up that which was\\nfallen down. My inscriptions I put upon the kiliri of its\\nbuildings. To build it and to erect its summit I set my\\nhand. I built it anew as in former times; as in days of yore\\nI erected its summit.\\nNebo, rightful son, lordly messenger, majestic friend of\\nMarduk, look kindly on my pious works; long life, enjoy-\\nment of health, a firm throne, a long reign, the overthrow\\nof foes, and conquest of the land of the enemy give me as a\\ngift. On thy righteous tablet which determines the course\\nof heaven and earth, record for me length of days, write for\\nme wealth. Before Marduk, lord of heaven and earth, the\\nfather who bore thee, make pleasant my days, speak favor-\\nably for me. Let this be in thy mouth, Nebuchadnezzar,\\nthe restorer-king!\\n(5^9)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0561.jp2"}, "562": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nAs we have seen, Birs-Nimrud is one of the\\nmost considerable ruins in Babylonia, and since\\nNebuchadnezzar is careful to inform us that he\\ndid not alter its foundations, we may presume it\\nwas from the beginning a vast and impressive\\nstructure. How old it may be, who can say?\\nNebuchadnezzar afiirms that it was the work of a\\nformer king, and his silence as to the name of\\nthis king points to the fact that the original\\nbuilder had long been forgotten. As to the past\\nhistory of the tower, tradition seems to have wav-\\nered. At the beginning of his inscription Neb-\\nuchadnezzar tells us that at the time of the erec-\\ntion of the tower, its summit had not been com-\\npleted, but at the end he says, as in days of yore\\nI erected its summit. All this gives the impres-\\nsion of great antiquity, and Nebuchadnezzar s\\nown description of this weather-worn, decayed\\nand abandoned mountain of brick, which evi-\\ndently had made a deep impression on his mind,\\nseems to mark it out especially as a subject of\\nfable and legend. Cheyne, it is true, strongly\\nobjects to Birs-Nimrud on the ground that it lies\\nin Borsippa, not in Babylon proper; but, at all\\nevents, Borsippa was a suburb of Babylon, and\\nwe need not suppose that the Hebrews, to whom\\nthe tale was probably carried by merchants and\\nother travellers, would be very exact on such a\\nnice question of topography. In any case, it was\\nfrom Babylon, the centre of the Chaldean world,\\nthat the dispersion took place, for which the\\ntower and the confusion of tongues furnish only\\nthe picturesque motive. In ancient times this\\nmonument, with its mouldering, bulging,\\nweather-stained walls, must have presented an\\n(520)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0562.jp2"}, "563": {"fulltext": "Appearance of Birs-Nimrud\\nappearance weird in the extreme. Perhaps Neb-\\nuchadnezzar did not improve it as much as he\\nsupposed when he dyed its hoary walls all the\\ncolors of the rainbow.* Time, however, which\\nspares nothing, has erased all Nebuchadnezzar s\\nbright colors, and its tooth has eaten so deep into\\nthis venerable structure that no future king will\\nrestore it. What a pity that such monuments\\nshould perish! Had nature not withheld from\\nthis talented people the building stone she lav-\\nished on Egypt, we might still possess those in-\\ncomparable buildings, not much smaller f ^nd\\neven more interesting than the pyramids. Now\\nthat man has become free, works tha-t require so\\nprodigal a sacrifice of human life will never again\\nbe executed.\\nThis temple of the Seven Lights was dedicated, as its name\\nimplies, to the seven Planetary deities. Each of its stories was\\nassociated with a heavenly body, and bore its own color, thus\\n1. Saturn =i Adar black.\\n2. Venus Ishtar white.\\n3. Jupiter Merodach orange.\\n4. Mercury Nebo blue.\\n5. Mars Nergal scarlet.\\n6. Moon silver.\\n7. Sun gold.\\nf It is frequently stated that the great Babylonian ziggurats\\nwere even vaster than the Egyptian pyramids. This, however,\\ndoes not seem to have been the case. The perimeter of Babil,\\nwhich is the largest, including the accumulation of debris, is about\\n740 metres, which is less than that of the pyramid of Cheops.\\n(521)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0563.jp2"}, "564": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0564.jp2"}, "565": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0565.jp2"}, "566": {"fulltext": "1\\nBabylonJ\\ne\\nA Babylonian Flood Map.", "height": "2041", "width": "2010", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0566.jp2"}, "567": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0567.jp2"}, "568": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\ncurved stream also leads from the Euphrates into\\nThe Bitter Stream. The name is perhaps in-\\ncomplete; it seems to be the concluding syllables\\nof the Babylonian for exit or outlet.\\n4. The seven points which extend like the\\npoints of a star are marked Districts. The\\nBabylonians divided the world into seven zones\\n(Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 174 fT.), a division\\nwhich is copied in some late apocryphal writings\\n(cf. Ethiopic Enoch, Ixxiii. 5-8; 2 (4) Esdras, vi.\\n50, 52). There are seven places marked on the\\nmap, one for each zone or district. Each point\\ncorresponds to one of these places.\\n5. The Mountain marked at the north of\\nthe map represents the mountains at the boun-\\ndary of the world, those marked K in the last\\nchart of Jensen s Kosmologie (or possibly\\nthose marked g, h). The district on the far side\\nof these is, of course, the region where the sun is\\nat night, hence the region where the sun is not\\nseen. It is said to be six Kasbu between\\nthis and the next region. The Kasbu was a\\nspace of two hours. An astronomical tablet from\\nthe palace of Assurbanipal tells us that at the time\\nof the equinox six Kasbu was the day and six\\nKasbu the night. The time when the sun is not\\nseen is therefore six Kasbu long. As in Europe\\nan hour is used as a measure of distance (mean-\\ning the space one can travel in an hour), so in\\nAssyrian a similar use was made of Kasbu. Peiser\\ntranslates it Doppelstunde. In most of the\\ntablet it probably means the distance a man\\nwould travel in two hours, but where the sun is\\nnot seen is probably its primary meaning.\\n6. Habbu is, perhaps, as Peiser suggests (Z.A.,", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0568.jp2"}, "569": {"fulltext": "Appendix I\\nvol. iv., p. 367), to be identified with Habban\\n(spelled also Halman, Halba, and Helba, see W.\\nMax Miiller s Asien und Europa nach altagyp-\\ntischen Denkmalern, pp. 256, 257, and map),\\nwhich was situated in northern Syria near (ac-\\ncording to the Babylonian point of view) to the\\nMediterranean Sea.\\n7. Bit-Yakin was the birthplace of Merodach-\\nbaladan, and is frequently alluded to in the in-\\nscriptions. It was situated in the region of The\\nBitter Stream (cf. Delitzsch, op. cit. p. 203).\\n8. The place south of the Canal of Reeds is\\nmarked in Peiser s copy with a sign which may\\nbe read Bi or Gasg in Haupt s, it looks\\nmore like Nap. It lacks the determinative\\nfor either city or country. The sign seems to\\nhave been obscured in the original. The name\\ncannot now be made out. It seems to have been\\na place in the general region of Erdu, one of the\\noldest of the Babylonian cities.\\n9. The first place marked to the right of the\\nOutlet is given in the tablet a name, a part of\\nwhich is broken away. What remains looks like\\nthe beginning and end of the ideogram for Kutu\\nor Kutha, the name of an important centre of\\ncivilization in early times in Babylonia (cf. De-\\nlitzsch, op. cit. p. 217). It lay to the east of\\nBabylon.\\n10. A little above Kutha, The country As-\\nsyria is plainly marked on the map.\\n11. Peiser s text places the name Urash\\njust above Assyria, but he tells us the reading is\\nuncertain. I suspect that the sign he has read\\nash is a crowded writing of the Babylonian\\nar-tu, which would give us U-ra-ar-tu for\\n(525)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0569.jp2"}, "570": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nUr-ar-tu, the name of Armenia. This would\\ncomplete the circuit from the mountains of the\\nworld-boundary and the far northwest at their\\njunction with the Mediterranean (regarded by\\nthe Babylonians as a continuation of the Persian\\nGulf or Bitter Stream around the Babylonian\\nworld by the south to the limits of their world,\\non the northeast, where the boundary mountairT\\nwas supposed to be.\\nGeorge A. Barton.\\n(526)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0570.jp2"}, "571": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\nAppendix II.\\n(From Schwarz s Sintfluth und Volkerwanderungen.\\nTable of Traditions Relating to the Flood,\\nOriginal\\nInhabi-\\ntants of\\nGreece.\\nGreeks.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nEuropean\\nRace.\\nWest\\nAsiatic\\nRace,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic\\nGEOGRAPH\\nSITUATION\\nGreece.\\nGreece.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nIstros counted four\\ngreat world catas-\\ntrophes. One of\\nthese opened the\\nstraits of the Bos-\\nphorus and Helles-\\npont, causing the\\nwaters of the Black\\nSea to burst into the\\n^gean, to overflow\\nthe islands and\\nneighboring sea-\\ncoasts, and finally\\nto break through\\nthe Pillars of Her-\\ncules into the ocean.\\nI. Flood of Ogyges.\\nIn the reign of\\nKing Ogyges of At-\\ntica, there sprang\\nfrom Lake Copais a\\nflood which reached\\nup to heaven and\\ndestroyed most of\\nthe people. Ogyges\\nescaped in a ship\\nwith some compan-\\nions.\\nII. Flood of Deu-\\ncalion.\\nWhen Zeus de-\\nstroyed the whole\\nsinful race of the\\nbronze age by a\\ngreat flood, Deuca-\\nlion of Thessaly,son\\nof Prometheus and\\nprogenitor of the\\nStrabo\\nEustath. ad\\nDionys.\\nPerieg.\\nAkusilaos\\nPausanias:\\nix. 5.\\nApollodorus\\nI.\\nPindar:\\nOlymp. IX.\\nOvid:\\nMetam. I.\\nStrabo IX.\\nApollon.\\nRhod. III.\\nPausanias I.\\n(527)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0571.jp2"}, "572": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nRACE AMD\\nSTOCK,\\nGEOGRAPH,\\nSITUATION,\\nLoeris.\\nArgos.\\nSicily.\\nDelphi.\\nMegara.\\nThessaly.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nHellenes, escaped\\nwith his wife\\nPyrrha in a boat\\nwhich he had built\\nfor himself by his\\nfather s advice, and\\nlanded, after nine\\ndays, on Parnassus.\\nIn memory of the\\nflood of Deucalion\\nand of those who\\nperished in it, every\\nyear, on the 13th\\nof the month An-\\nthesterion, a me-\\nmorial festival was\\ncelebrated at Ath-\\nens with libations\\nof water.\\nAccording to\\nHellanicos, Deuca-\\nlion landed upon\\nOthrys.\\nThe Locriansheld\\nOpontus or Cynos\\nto be the landing-\\nplace of Deucalion.\\nIn Argos also was\\nshown the place\\nwhere Deucalion\\nhad left his ship and\\nhad erected an altar\\nto Zeus Aphesios.\\nThe people of\\nSicily said that Deu-\\ncalion took refuge\\non .^tna.\\nAccording to the\\nDelphians tradi-\\ntion, their ances-\\ntors, in fleeing be-\\nfore the deluge,\\nfollowec^ a number\\nof wolves, and so\\nreached a cave on\\ntop of Parnassus,\\nwhere they re-\\nmained in safety.\\nMegaros, son of\\nZeus, according to\\nthe tradition of the\\npeople of Megara,\\nfound safety on\\nMount Geranion.\\nThe Thessalian\\nCerambos escaped\\nby rising into the\\nair on wings given\\nhim by the nymphs.\\nSOURCES.\\nAp. schol. ad\\nPindar:\\nOlymp. IX.\\nPindar:\\nOly77ip. IX.\\nStrabo IX.\\nEtym. Magn.\\nNiGiD.\\nAp. schol. ad\\nGenn. Caes.,\\nA rat.\\nPausanias X.\\nPausanias I.\\nOvid\\nMetam. VII.\\n(528)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0572.jp2"}, "573": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\nScandi-\\nnavians.\\nCymri.\\n34\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic.\\nGermans,\\nGoths.\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic.\\nGermans,\\nCelts.\\nGEOGRAPH\\nSITUATION\\nDodona.\\nCos.\\nRhodes.\\nCrete.\\nSamothrace.\\nArcadia.\\nScandinavia.\\nEngland.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nPerirrhoos, son\\nof .iEolus, was res-\\ncued from the\\ndeluge by Zeus in\\nDodona.\\nThe inhabitants\\nof Cos told how\\nMerops escaped\\nfrom the flood with\\na number of people\\nand, with them,\\nfounded a state on\\nCos.\\nIn the tradition of\\nthe people of\\nRhodes only the\\nTelchines escaped\\nfrom the deluge.\\nAccording to\\nCretan traditions,\\nlasion of Crete\\nescaped.\\nIn the tradition\\nof the Samothra-\\ncians, Saon, son of\\nZeus or of Hermes,\\nwas saved from the\\ndeluge.\\nDardanos took\\nrefuge in Samo-\\nthrace from the\\nflood in Arcadia.\\nAccording to the\\nyounger Ed d a,\\nOdin, Will and We,\\nthe sons of the god\\nBor, killed the giant\\nYmir. From the\\nwounds of the dead\\ngiant flowed so\\nmuch blood that the\\nwhole race of giants\\nwas drowned, ex-\\ncept Bergelmir\\nalone, who, with his\\nwife, escaped in a\\nboat and thus be-\\ncame the founder\\nof a new race of\\ngiants.\\nWhen the lake of\\nL 1 i o n overflowed\\nand deluged the\\nwhole land, all men\\nwere drowned but\\ntwo, Dwyfan and\\nBekker\\nA necdot.\\nGraec. I.\\nSchol. ad. Il-\\niad., A\\nDiOD. Sic.\\nSchol. ad\\nOdyss. E.\\nDioD. Sic.\\nDiONVS,\\nHalic. and\\nDiOD. Sic.\\nEdda:\\nVafthrud-\\nnistnal.\\nEdwin\\nDavies:\\nBrit. Mythol.\\nGrimm\\nDeutsche\\nMythologie.\\n(529)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0573.jp2"}, "574": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nLithua-\\nnians\\nGypsy.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic.\\nWends.\\nLettes.\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic.\\nHindus.\\nGEOGRAPH,\\nSITUATION,\\nLithuania.\\nHungary.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nDwyfach, who es-\\ncaped in a boat into\\nwhich they had\\ntaken a pair of every\\nkind of creature.\\nWhen the highest\\ngod, Pramzimas,\\nlooked down upon\\nthe world from a\\nwindow of his heav-\\nenly house and saw\\nnothing but war\\nand injustice\\namong men, he sent\\nto earth two giants,\\nWandu and Wejas\\n(water and wind),\\nwho, for twenty\\ndays and nights,\\ndesolated every-\\nthing. When Pram-\\nzimas looked down\\nagain as he was eat-\\ning heavenly nuts,\\nhe let fall a shell.\\nIt dropped on the\\ntop of the highest\\nmountain, upon\\nwhich several pairs\\nof human beings\\nand animals had\\ntaken refuge. They\\nall climbed into the\\nnutshell, which now\\nfloated about on the\\nfiood that covered\\nall things. Here-\\nupon God caused\\nthe storm to abate\\nand the waters to\\nsubside once more.\\nThe people whohad\\nbeen saved immedi-\\nately separated, and\\nonly one pair, the\\nprogenitors of the\\nLithuanians, re-\\nmained behind in\\nthat region.\\nAn old man who\\nhad been given a\\nnight s lodging\\nwith a family, left\\nto his hosts a little\\nfish, charging them\\nSOURCES,\\nNarbutta\\nDzieje\\nstarozytne\\nnarodtc litew-\\nskiego.\\nGrimm\\nDeutsche\\nMythologie.\\nHanusch\\nSlavischer\\nMy thus.\\nWlislocki\\nVo7it Wan\\ndernden\\nZigeuner-\\nvolke.\\n(530)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0574.jp2"}, "575": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\nPEOPLE.\\nWoguls.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nMongols,\\nNorthern\\nDivision,\\nWestern\\nBranch.\\nFinns,\\nUgrians.\\nGEOGRAPH\\nSITUATION\\nUral Moun-\\ntains.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nto take good care of\\nit until his return.\\nNotwithstanding\\nthis injunction, the\\nwife, being eager\\nfor a dainty dish,\\ncooked the fish\\nagainst her hus-\\nband s will, when\\nsuddenly there\\ncame rain and a\\ngreat flood, and the\\ndisobedient woman\\nwas killed by light-\\nning. On the ninth\\nday the old man\\nagain appeared be-\\nfore his host and\\nadvised him to take\\nanother wife, and\\nwith her and his\\nkindred to escape\\nin a boat, at the\\nsame time taking\\nwith him animals\\nand the seeds of\\ntrees and plants.\\nThe rain lasted for\\na year and nothing\\ncould be seen but\\nwater and sky; only\\nat the end of a year\\ndid the waters sub-\\nside.\\nIn consequence of\\ncontinuous rain af-\\nter a seven years\\ndrought, a general\\ndeluge occurred. In\\nthis all the giants\\nperished except\\nthose few who had\\nmade themselves\\nboats out of cloven\\npoplars and fas-\\ntened them to the\\nearth by means of\\n500 braces of long\\nrope made out of\\nwillow roots. On\\nthe seventh day the\\nwater began to sub-\\nside, and those who\\nhad survived could\\nagain set foot upon\\nthe earth.\\nSOURCES.\\nLenormant:\\nOrigines de\\nrhistoire\\nd aprcs la\\nBible.\\n(530", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0575.jp2"}, "576": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nPEOPLE.\\nKalmuks.\\nBabylo-\\nnians.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nNorthern\\nDivision,\\nMiddle\\nBranch.\\nMongols.\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nAramaeans,\\nSemites.\\nNorthern\\nFamily,\\nMesopota-\\nGEOGRAPH,\\nSITUATION,\\nEurope and\\nCentral Asia,\\nBabylonia.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nThe traditions of\\nthe Kalmuks record\\na general deluge.\\nI. Chaldean ac-\\ncount\\nSit-napistim of\\nSurippak,on the Eu-\\nphrates, by the ad-\\nvice of the god Ea,\\nbuilt a ship in which\\nhe secured seeds\\nof life of every\\nkind, as also his\\nfamily, his servants,\\nhis friends, and the\\nnecessary provi-\\nsions. The deluge\\nfollowed amid tem-\\npest, thunderstorm\\nand earthquake it\\nreached up to hea-\\nven, but on the sev-\\nenth day subsided.\\nThe ship came to\\nland upon a moun-\\ntain in the country\\nof Nisir (in the\\nnortheastern part\\nof Babylonia), and\\nSit-napistim left the\\nship after he had\\nconvinced himself\\nby thrice sending\\nout birds (dove,\\nswallow and raven)\\nthat the flood was\\nabating.\\nII. Account of\\nBerosus (about 260\\nB.C.) The Baby-\\nlonian king Xisu-\\nthros, at the com-\\nmand of Kronos,\\nbuilt a ship and en-\\ntered it with wife,\\nchildren and\\nfriends, as well as\\nbirds and four-\\nfooted beasts. On\\nthe 15th of the\\nmonth Daesius, the\\nflood began, but\\nsoon subsided. Of\\nSOURCES.\\nMalte-Brun\\nPrecis de\\ngeogr.\\nCuneiform\\ntablets of the\\n7th cent. B. C.\\ncollected by\\nHaupt: copies\\nof older tab-\\nlets restored\\nabout 2000 B.\\nC.\\nAlexander\\npolyhistor,\\nand Abvde-\\nNUS.\\n(532)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0576.jp2"}, "577": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\nPEOPLE\\nIsraelites.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nAramaeans,\\nSemites.\\nNorthern\\nFamily,\\nHebrews.\\nGEOGRAPH.\\nSITUATION.\\nPalestine.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nthis Xisuthros re-\\nceived intellig-ence\\nby repeatedly send-\\ning- out birds. The\\nship remained\\nstanding- upon the\\nCordyaean moun-\\ntain range in Ar-\\nmenia, and its re-\\nmains could be seen\\nas late as the time\\nof Berosus. Those\\nwho had been saved\\nwith Xisuthros af-\\nter this went back to\\nBabylon, while Xis-\\nuthros himself,with\\nhis wife, daughter,\\nand pilot, were\\ntaken to heaven.\\nAlso traditions\\npreserved in frag-\\nments, discovered\\nbyScheiland Peiser.\\nAt Jehovah s\\nbidding Noah built\\nan ark which he\\nentered with his\\nwhole family, and\\nwith specimens of\\nall birds, reptiles\\nandfour-footed\\nbeasts, after sup-\\nplying it with pro-\\nvisions for all its in-\\nmates. After Noah\\nhad entered the ark\\nit rained forty days\\nand nights without\\nceasing-, so that at\\nlast the highest\\nmountains were\\ncovered by the wa-\\nter and all living\\ncreatures perished,\\nexcept those saved\\nin the ark. When\\nthe ark had come\\nto a standstill on\\nMt. Ararat, and\\nNoah had been con-\\nvinced of the ebb-\\ning of the flood by\\nrepeatedly sending\\nout birds, he went\\nout of the ark with\\nall those belonging\\nSOURCES.\\nScHEiL and\\nPeiser.\\nThe Bible,\\nGenesis, an\\nimitation of\\nthe Chaldean\\naccount.\\n(533)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0577.jp2"}, "578": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nIranians.\\nPersians.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic.\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic.\\nIranians.\\nGEOGRAPH.\\nSITUATION.\\nTurkestan.\\nPersia.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nto him, and with all\\nthe rescued ani-\\nmals.\\nIn the ancient\\nsacred books of\\nthe Iranians, which\\nform the founda-\\ntion of Zoroaster s\\nteaching, it is told\\nhow the good god\\nAhuramazda proph-\\nesied to Yima,\\nfounder of the hu-\\nman race, that the\\nearth would be laid\\nwaste by a series\\nof terrible winters.\\nYima, therefore, at\\nAhuramazda s com-\\nmand, made him-\\nself a square garden\\nsurrounded by a\\nwall, and in it found\\nplace for the seeds\\nof human beings,\\nanimals and plants,\\nthat he might save\\nthem from destruc-\\ntion.\\nIn the seventh\\nchapter of the Bun-\\ndehesh, one of the\\nsacred books of the\\nPersians, it is re-\\ncounted that in the\\nearliest times of the\\nworld, during the\\nwar with Ahriman,\\nTistar, genius of the\\nstar Sirius, at Ahur-\\namazda s bidding,\\nappeared three\\ntimes in the world,\\nfirst in the form of\\na man, then in that\\nof a horse, finally in\\nthat of a bull and\\neach time there was\\na ten days rain,\\nthat the harmful\\ncreatures formed\\nby the evil principle\\nmight be blotted\\nout. When at last\\nthese waters were\\ndriven apart to the\\nVendidad II.\\nBundehesh,\\nCap. VII.\\nPart of the\\nsacred litera-\\nture of the\\nPersians.\\n(534)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0578.jp2"}, "579": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\nModern\\nPersians.\\nHindus.\\nTadjiks\\nor\\nTajiks.\\nBokhari.\\nAfghans.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic.\\nIranians,\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic.\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic.\\nIranians.\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic.\\nIranians.\\nWest\\nAsiatic,\\nIndo-\\nGermanic.\\nIranians.\\nGEOGRAPH,\\nSITUATION,\\nPersia.\\nEast India.\\nTurkestan.\\nBokhara.\\nAfghanistan.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nends of the world\\nby a great wind,\\nthere arose from\\nthem 4 great and 23\\nlittle seas.\\nThe modern Per-\\nsians believe that\\nNoah went out of\\nthe Ark upon Mount\\nElvend, near Ram-\\nadan, the old Ekba-\\ntana.\\nTales of a deluge\\nare found in the\\nprose writings of the\\nBrahman period, in\\ntheSatapatha Brah-\\nmana, in the later\\nepic poems and in\\nthe still later Pura-\\nnas. Three of the\\nincarnations of\\nVishnu are con-\\nnected with a del-\\nuge. In all three\\ncases Vishnu saves\\nthe human race\\nfrom destruction by\\nwater by taking\\nfirst the form of a\\nfish, then of a turtle,\\nand lastly of a boar.\\nMount Kasykurt,\\nin the range of\\nKaratau, is consid-\\nered a sacred moun-\\ntain by the present\\ninhabitants of Turk-\\nestan because on it\\nthe ship of their pro-\\ngenitor came to land\\nafter the great flood.\\nThe people of\\nBokhara make their\\nNoah land in the\\nmountains of Nura-\\ntau, northeast of\\nBokhara.\\nMount Nargil,\\nnear Dschelalabad,\\nplays the same part\\namong the Af-\\nghans.\\nSOURCES.\\nRiTTER\\nErdkunde\\nAsians^ VI.\\nVeda {Sata-\\npatha\\nBrdkmana^\\nMahd-\\nbhdrata,\\nBhdgavata-\\nPurdna and\\nMatsya-\\nPurdna).\\nPopular\\niegetid.\\nMeyendorff:\\nVoyage d Or-\\nenbourg a\\nBoukhara.\\nBURNES\\nTravels into\\nBokhara. I.\\n(535)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0579.jp2"}, "580": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nd\\nPEOPLE.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nGEOGRAPH.\\nSITUATION.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nSOURCES.\\ni8\\nKash-\\nWest\\nKashmir.\\nKashmir was\\nV. Hugel:\\nmirs.\\nAsiatic,\\nonce entirely\\nKaschmir.\\nIndo-\\ncovered with water.\\nII.\\nGermanic.\\nVishnu gave an out-\\nHindus.\\nlet to the water by\\nopening th^ moun-\\ntains near Bara-\\nmuUa, whereupon\\nKasyapa, a grand-\\nson of Brahma,\\npopulated the land\\nleft dry.\\n19\\nThibe-\\nEast\\nThibet.\\nThibet was once\\nTurner: An\\ntans.\\nAsiatic,\\nwholly inun-\\nAtnbassador\\nMongols,\\ndated. The god\\nat the Court\\nSouthern\\nGya, out of pity for\\nof the Llama\\nDivision.\\nthe inhabitants of\\nThibet, then few in\\nnumber, allowed the\\nwaters to flow off\\ntoward Bengal.\\nof Teschoo.\\n20\\nChinese.\\nEast\\nChina.\\nThe Chinese cal-\\nYi-King, al-\\nAsiatic,\\nendars state that in\\nleged to have\\nMongols,\\nthe year 2297 b.c,\\nbeen written\\nSouthern\\nunder the Emperor\\n4;/ Confucius.\\nDivision.\\nYao, a fearful del-\\nuge devastated the\\nland, and that mul-\\ntitudes of people\\nwere drowned. The\\nwaters rose as high\\nas the mountains.\\n21\\nLeptshas.\\nEast\\nDardschiling\\nDuring a flood a\\nHooker s\\nAsiatic,\\nin the Hima-\\npair of human be-\\nHimalayan\\nMongols,\\nlayas.\\nings took refuge on\\nfourn.\\nSouthern\\nthe top of Mount\\nDivision.\\nTendong.\\nThibetans.\\n22\\nKarens.\\nEast\\nBurmah.\\nAges ago the\\nMason: Re-\\nAsiatic,\\nearth was inun-\\nport on Ko\\nMongols,\\ndated by a flood\\nThah-Byu.\\nSouthern\\nwhich finally\\nDivision.\\nreached to heaven.\\nBurmans.\\nTwo brothers es-\\ncaped on a raft.\\n23\\nChangrai.\\nEast\\nKamboja.\\nThe flood tradi-\\nBastian in\\nAsiatic,\\ntion of the Changrai\\nZeitschrift\\nMongols,\\nis similar to that of\\nfar Erd-\\nSouthern\\nthe Bible.\\nkunde at Ber-\\nDivision.\\nlin, 1866.\\nIsolated\\nBranches,\\nMoi.\\n(536)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0580.jp2"}, "581": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\n25\\n26\\nPEOPLE.\\nBanar.\\nBinnas.\\nKam-\\nchadales.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nMong-ols,\\nSouthern\\nDivision.\\nIsolated\\nBranches,\\nMoi.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nTrue\\nMalays.\\nMalays,\\ne. S.)\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nSiberiacs.\\nGEOGRAPH\\nSITUATION\\nKamboja.\\nMalayan\\nPeninsula.\\nKam-\\nchatka.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nDuring a great\\nflood the father of\\nthe human race was\\nsaved by shutting\\nhimself into\\nwater-tight chest,\\nIn the opinion of\\nthe Binnas theearth\\nis liquid within and\\nhas only a thin cov-\\nering on the out-\\nside. In ancient\\ntime God broke\\nthis crust in\\npieces so that the\\nearth was flooded\\nwith water and\\ndestroyed. Later\\nGod caused Mount\\nLulumut and\\nother mountains\\nto rise. When\\nMount Lulumut\\nhad risen out of\\nthe water there ap-\\npeared upon the\\nwaves a Prahu (or\\nflat boat), entirely\\nclosed, in which\\nGod had placed a\\npair of human be-\\nings created by him-\\nself. From this pair\\nmankind is de-\\nscended.\\nNot long after\\nKutka, the Creator,\\nhad departed from\\nthe Kamchadales,a\\ngreat inundation of\\nthe whole country\\noccurred and the\\npeople were\\ndrowned, except a\\nfew who bound\\ntrees together and\\nthus made rafts on\\nwhich they es-\\ncaped. When the\\nflood abated these\\nrafts were left\\nstanding on high\\nmountains.\\nSOURCES.\\nBastian, ibid.\\nCameron:\\nOur Tropical\\nPossessions in\\nMalayan\\nIndia.\\nSteller s\\nDescription of\\nKamchatka.\\n(537)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0581.jp2"}, "582": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n28\\nMundas.\\nEskimos.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nDravidians\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nSiberiacs.\\nGEOGRAPH.\\nSITUATION.\\nEast India.\\nThe northern\\npart of N.\\nAmerica.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nSingbonga, the\\nhighest being, sent\\na great flood to de-\\nstroy the corrupt\\npeople only one\\nbrother and one\\nsister were saved,\\nhaving hidden\\nthemselves under a\\nTiril tree.\\nThere are flood\\ntraditions among\\nall the Eskimos, on\\nthe mainland as\\nwell as on the is-\\nlands. Petitot was\\ntold by the Tschli-\\ngites on the lower\\nMackenzie, that the\\nwaters once poured\\nover the globe, so\\nthat the Rocky\\nMountains were\\nflooded, and the\\nearth and the world\\ndisappeared. Only\\nwhen a man called\\nSon of the Owl\\nthrew his bow and\\nhis earrings into the\\nwater did the flood\\ncease. Franz Boas\\nheard the following\\naccount from the\\nNorth American\\nCentral Eskimos: A\\nlong time ago the\\nsea suddenly began\\nto rise until the\\nwhole land was cov-\\nered. The water\\nrose to the tops of\\nthe mountains and\\nthe ice floated away\\nover them. When\\nthe waters disap-\\npeared the ice re-\\nmained lying upon\\nthe mountains and\\n01 red their sum-\\ni. j. A great num-\\nber of Eskimos per-\\nished at this time,\\nbut many others\\nwere saved, having\\nat the beginning of\\nthe flood taken\\nSOURCES.\\nNOTTROTT\\nDie Gossne-\\nrische Mis-\\nsion unterden\\nKolhsy Halle,\\n1874.\\nHall Life\\namong the\\nEskimos.\\nFranz Boas\\nThe Central\\nEskimo.\\nPetitot:\\nVocabul.\\nfrangais-es-\\nquimau^ Con-\\ngres inte7-n.\\ndes Ameri-\\ncan.., Nancy,\\n1875.\\n(538)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0582.jp2"}, "583": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\n29\\nPEOPLE\\nAig^on-\\nqums.\\nChippe-\\nwas,\\nDog-ribs\\nand Slave\\nIndians\\nHare\\nIndians.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nAthapas-\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nAthapas-\\ncas.\\nGEOGRAPH\\nSITUATION\\nNorth\\nAmerica.\\nNorth\\nAmerica.\\nNorth\\nAmerica.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nrefuge in their\\nkajaks.\\nAmong all the\\nbranches of the Al-\\ngonquins the de\\nstruction of the\\nworld by a deluge\\nis ascribed to an\\nevil spirit who is\\nsymbolized by a ser\\npent. He stands in\\nopposition to Mena-\\nboshu, a power\\nful demigod, the\\ngrandfather of\\nmen and created\\nbeings.\\nIn the beginning\\nof time there was a\\ngreat fall of snow.\\nThen a mouse\\ngnawed through a\\nleather skin con-\\ntaining the heat,\\nwhich now spread\\nover the earth. In\\nan instant the whole\\nmass of snow melt-\\ned, so that the high-\\nest tir trees were\\nsubmerged and the\\nwater finally cov-\\nered thesum-\\nmits of the Rocky\\nMountains. One\\nperson only, an old\\nman, had foreseen\\nthe deluge and had\\nbuilt a great canoe,\\nin which he floated\\nabout, picking up all\\nthe animals he met.\\nKunyon, i.e. the\\nwise one, who had\\nforeseen the flood,\\nbuilt himself a great\\nraft and escaped\\nwith the animals\\nthat he had gath-\\nered upon it, while\\nhis friends, whom\\nhe had warned in\\nvain, were drowned\\nfor the flood rose\\nSOURCES.\\nSquier\\nHistor. and\\nMythol.\\nTradit.ofthe\\nAlgonquins.\\nPetitot as\\nabove.\\nPetitot: as\\nabove.\\n(539)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0583.jp2"}, "584": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n33\\nPEOPLE.\\nLou-\\ncheux.\\nChero-\\nkee.\\nCrees or\\nKniste-\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nAthapas-\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nAppala-\\nchians.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nAlgonquin,\\nLenni-\\nLennape.\\nGEOGRAPH,\\nSITUATION\\nNorth\\nAmerica.\\nNorth\\nAmerica.\\nNorth\\nAmerica.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nover the Rocky\\nMountains.\\nEtoetchokren es-\\ncaped from the\\nflood in a canoe\\nwhich floated on the\\nwaters until they\\nevaporated the\\ncanoe ran aground\\non Mount Tschan-\\neguta (Place of the\\nOld Man) in the\\nRocky Mountains.\\nOnce, in conse\\nquence of a heavy\\nrain, there occurred\\nsuch a deluge that\\nevery one was\\ndrowned except a\\nsingle family, who\\nby the advice of\\ntheir dog, had built\\nthemselves a boat.\\nAt the time of the\\ngreat deluge, which\\noccurred many cen-\\nturies ago and blot-\\nted out all the peo-\\nples of the earth,\\nthe tribes of the red\\nmen assembled on\\nthe Coteau des\\nPrairies, in Minne-\\nsota, in order that\\nthey might escape\\nfrom the water.\\nWhen they had\\ncome together here\\nfrom every direc\\ntion, the water con-\\ntinued to rise until it\\nfinally covered them\\nall, whereupon their\\nflesh was turned\\ninto red pipe clay.\\nWhile they were\\ndrowning a young\\nwoman, Kwaptahw\\n(virgin) by name,\\nseized the foot of a\\ngreat bird that flew\\nby, and was carried\\nto the top of a high\\ncliff not far from\\nthere, which rose\\nSOURCES.\\nPetitot: as\\nabove^\\n(540)\\nSCHOOLCRAFI\\nNotes on the\\nIroquois.\\nI\\nCatlin:\\nIndians of\\nNorth Amer-\\nica Smith-\\nson. Rep. 1885,", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0584.jp2"}, "585": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\n36\\nPEOPLE,\\nTuwanas.\\nLummi\\nIndians.\\nTolewa\\nIndians.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nAlgonquin\\nLenni-\\nLennape.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nAlgon-\\nquins,\\nLenni-\\nLennape.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nCalifor-\\nnians.\\nGEOGRAPH\\nSITUATION.\\nWashiington\\nTerritory.\\nWashington\\nTerritory.\\nCalifornia.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nabove the water.\\nHere she bore twins\\nby the warrior\\neagle, and they be\\ncame the progeni\\ntors of the present\\nhuman race.\\nDuring a flood\\ncaused by heavy\\nrain showers which\\ninundated all the\\nland, the good In-\\ndians escaped in\\nboats to the highest\\nmountains of the\\nOlympic Range\\nand when the water\\nrose even over these\\nthey bound their\\nboats to the high\\ntrees by means of\\nlong ropes made of\\ncedar bSaa^es,\\norder not to be\\nswept away.\\nOnce the whole\\nland was inundated\\nexcept a single high\\nmountain in the\\nCascade Range,\\nupon which an old\\nman escaped on a\\nraft. This moun-\\ntain, lying near\\nSteilacoom, is called\\nby the Indians the\\nold land.\\nDuring a rain of\\nlong duration, the\\nwater rose until all\\nthe valleys were in-\\nundated. The In-\\ndians, who at that\\ntime were very\\nnumerous, fled to\\nthe highlands, but\\neven here were\\novertaken by the\\nwater and drowned.\\nOnly one pair were\\nsaved, having\\nreached the highest\\nmountain peak.\\nThis peak has vari-\\nous names with the\\nSOURCES.\\nEells\\nTradit. 0/ the\\nDeluge\\nA merican\\nA ntiquarian^\\n1878.\\ny\\nl!0-\\nEells as\\nabove.\\nContributions\\nto North\\nAmer. Eth-\\nnology., 1877.\\n(541:", "height": "3762", "width": "2381", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0585.jp2"}, "586": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nPEOPLE.\\nMaya\\nNations.\\nAsho-\\nchemie or\\nWapo\\nIndians.\\nZufii.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nCalifor-\\nnians.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nCalifor-\\nnians.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nIsolated\\nbranches of\\nSonora and\\nTexas,\\nPueblos.\\nGEOGRAPH.\\nSITUATION.\\nCalifornia.\\nCalifornia.\\nNew Mexico.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nvarious Californian\\ntribes. Among the\\nMattoals it is Tay-\\nlor s Peak.\\nIn the old time\\nthe Indians lived in\\nthe valley of the\\nSacramento. Sud-\\ndenly there arose a\\nmighty flood, so\\nthat the whole val-\\nley became like a\\nsea. The Indians\\nfled, but were\\ndrowned neverthe\\nless. Only two es\\ncaped to the moun\\ntains. Later the\\nGreat Man (God)\\nopened the side of a\\nmountain and the\\nwaters flowed down\\ninto the sea.\\nA long time ago,\\nin a great flood\\nwhich covered the\\nwhole land, all liv-\\ning creatures were\\ndrowned with the\\nexception of the\\ncoyote (prairie fox)\\nwhich then repopu\\nlated the earth by\\nplanting in the\\nground the tail-\\nfeathers of birds,\\nwhich grew into\\nhuman beings.\\nThe Zunis were\\nonce driven by a\\ngreat water flood\\nout of the valley to\\nthe rich and beauti-\\nful mesa (slope of\\nthe tableland) the\\nflood rose ever\\nhigher and had al-\\nready reached the\\nedge of the mesa,\\nwhen the son and\\nthe daughter of two\\npriests were thrown\\ninto the waves to\\nplacate the angry\\nelement; j\\nSOURCES.\\nContributions\\nto North\\nAiner. Eth-\\nnology^ 1877.\\nContributions\\nto North\\nAnter. Eth-\\nnology., 1877.\\nMoses Stev-\\nENSOHN\\nFifth Annual\\nRep. Bureau\\nof Ethnology^\\nWashington^\\n1887.\\n(542) ^kP^^^p^.l A)\\n:.v4", "height": "3762", "width": "2304", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0586.jp2"}, "587": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\nPEOPLE.\\nThlin-\\nkeets.\\nBella-\\nCoola\\nIndians.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nNorth-\\nwestern\\nTribes.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nNorth-\\nwestern\\nTribes.\\nGEOGRAPH.\\nSITUATION.\\nAlaska.\\nNorth\\nAmerica,\\nalong the\\nPacific\\nOcean.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nJelch the raven,\\nthe great creator,\\nhad caught a great\\ncuttlefish for his\\nuncle, who was\\nseeking to kill him.\\nThe cuttlefish\\nswelled until it filled\\nthe whole house.\\nAt the same time\\nthe water rose and\\nall men perished.\\nJelch, however, put\\non a bird-skin, and\\ngave another to his\\nmother, then both\\nrose into the air.\\nJelch flew so high\\nthat he touched the\\nheaven with his\\nbeak and stayed\\nhanging there for\\nten days. The\\nflood rose so high\\nthat it came up to\\nhis feet. When the\\nwater subsided he\\ncame down again\\nto earth.\\nAccording to\\nanother legend of\\nthe Thlinkeets men\\nescaped in a great\\nfloating building,\\nwhich, when the\\nwater went down,\\nwas dashed to\\npieces on one of the\\nrocks lying below\\nthe surface. It\\nthus caused the dis-\\npersion of men and\\nthe various lan-\\nguages.\\nMasmasalanich,\\nthe mightiest god\\nof the Bella-Coolas,\\nhad bound the earth\\nto the sun by a long\\nrope, which kept\\neach at a suitable\\ndistance from the\\nother and prevented\\nthe earth from sink-\\nng in the ocean.\\nOnce he stretched\\nthe rope, in conse-\\nKrause Die\\nThlinkit-\\nIndianeVy\\nJena, 1885.\\nHolmberg:\\nEthnogr.\\nSkizzen, Hel-\\nsing/ors^i^SS-\\nSOURCES.\\nr.\\nti\\nv^ v*^ ^j.,\\nl\\nBoas: Origi- .fikyv^\\nnal Mitthei-\\nlungen, from\\nthe Ethn. De- \\\\p^\\nparttnent of i sJ\\nthe Royal )r\\nMuseums in\\nBerlin, 1886.\\n(543)", "height": "3753", "width": "2438", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0587.jp2"}, "588": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nMexi-\\ncans.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nGEOGRAPH\\nSITUATION.\\nMexico.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nquence of which the\\nearth sank so deep\\nthat the waters cov-\\nered all the land up\\nto the mountain\\ntops. Many men\\nwho had fled to\\ntheir boats were de-\\nstroyed others\\nwere driven far\\naway. When Mas-\\nmasalanich short-\\nened the rope once\\nmore the earth rose\\nagain out of the\\nwaves and men\\nonce more spread\\nover it. The differ-\\nent tribes had now,\\nhowever, new\\nabodes and many\\nlanguages.\\nr-\\nThe most detailed\\nFlood traditions of\\nAmerica are found\\namong the different\\ncivilized peoples of\\nMexico, among\\nwhom in every case\\nNoah appears, be-\\ning saved from a\\ngreat flood. Aztecs,\\nTlascaltecs, Zapo-\\ntecs, Mixtecs, have\\ntheir Coxcox, Teo-\\ncipactli, Tezpi,\\nNata, who, with\\ntheir wives, escaped\\nfrom the flood in\\nboats and continued\\nthe human race.\\nThe most common\\nof the Mexican\\nFlood traditions is\\nthe following In\\nthe Atonatiuh, i.e.,\\nAge of Water, a\\ngreat flood covered\\nthe whole earth and\\nall men were trans-\\nformed into fishes.\\nOnly one man and\\none woman es-\\ncaped by taking\\nrefuge in the hollow\\ntrunk of a cypress.\\nThe man was\\nHerbert\\nHowe Ban-\\ncroft:\\nNative Races\\nof the Pacific\\nStates, III.\\nHumboldt:\\nVue des Cor-\\ndilleres, II.\\nClavigero\\nStoria A ntica\\ndel Messico,\\nIII.\\nMac-Cul-\\nLOCH Philos.\\nand A nti-\\nquarian Re-\\nsearches.\\ny\\n(544)", "height": "3771", "width": "2304", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0588.jp2"}, "589": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\nPEOPLE.\\nQuiche\\nPeru-\\nvians.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nMayas.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nAndes\\nTribes.\\nGEOGRAPH,\\nSITUATION,\\nGuatemala.\\nPeru.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nnamed Coxcox, his\\nwife Xochiquetzal.\\nWhen the water re-\\nceded they landed\\non the peak of Col-\\nhuacan.\\nThe gods at first\\ncreated men out of\\nclay, but as these\\nwere very imper-\\nfect, the gods de-\\nstroyed their work\\nby a flood and crea-\\nted new human be-\\nings, the man of\\nwood and the wo-\\nman of resin. Since\\nthese also were not\\nperfect enough the\\ngods again de-\\nstroyed them by an\\nearthquake and by\\nburning resin which\\nrained from heav-\\nen; only a few es-\\ncaped, who were\\ntransformed into\\npigmy-apes. Fin-\\nally the gods formed\\nmen out of white\\nand yellow maize,\\nand from these the\\nQuiches are de-\\nscended.\\nThe Peruvians\\nhad various flood\\ntraditions, among\\nthem the following\\nA shepherd had\\nlearned from his\\nllamas, through\\ntheir knowledge of\\nthe stars, that the\\nworld was to be de-\\nstroyed by a flood.\\nHe fled, therefore,\\nwith his family\\nand his flock to\\nMount Ancasmarca,\\nwhither many other\\nanimals had already\\ntaken flight. Hardly\\nhad the shepherd\\narrived here when\\nthe sea left its shore\\nand destroyed all\\nSOURCES.\\nPopol Vuk, le\\nlivre sacre et\\nles mythes des\\nQuiches^ edid.\\nBrasseur de\\nBourbourg;\\nParis. 1861.\\nBancroft\\nNative Races\\nof the Pacific\\nStates, V.\\n35\\n(545)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0589.jp2"}, "590": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n46\\nPEOPLE.\\nArauca-\\nnians.\\nCaribs.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nArowak-\\nCarib\\nTribes.\\nGEOGRAPH\\nSITUATION\\nChili.\\nHaiti.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nliving creatures,\\nThe mountain was\\nlifted up by the\\nwaves and floated\\nlike a ship. On the\\nfifth day the waters\\nbegan to subside\\nagain.\\nAfter a severe\\nearthquake, accom-\\npanied by volcanic\\neruptions, there\\ncame a great water\\nflood from which\\nonly a few men es-\\ncaped. These found\\nsafety on a high\\nmountain with\\nthree peaks, which\\nfloated on the water\\nand was called by\\nthem Thegtheg,\\nz the noisy one,\\nor the lightener.\\nNow, as soon as the\\nAraucanians feel\\nthe approach of a\\nviolent earthquake,\\nthey try to find\\nsafety on a moun-\\ntain, in order to pro-\\ntect themselves\\nfrom the eventual\\nrising of the sea.\\nAt the same time\\nthey provide them-\\nselves with food and\\nwith woodendishes,\\nthat they may cover\\ntheir heads with the\\nlatter, if perchance\\nthe mountain on\\nwhich they stand\\nshould be lifted by\\nthe flood up to the\\nsun.\\nJaia, a cazique on\\nthe island of Haiti,\\nhad interred the\\nbones of his son,\\nwhom he killed be-\\ncause of a crime,\\nin a great gourd\\nbottle, according to\\nthe custom of his\\ncountry and in this\\nMolina:\\nEroberung\\nvon Chilly\\nLeipzig^ 1791.\\nWashington\\nIrving s Co-\\nlumbus y Book\\nVI.\\n(546)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0590.jp2"}, "591": {"fulltext": "Appendix ll\\nPEOPLE.\\nAcka-\\nwais.\\nArowaks.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nArowak-\\nCarib\\nTribes.\\nGEOGRAPH.\\nSITUATION.\\nBritish\\nGuiana.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nArowak-\\nCarib\\nTribes.\\nBritish\\nGuiana.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\ngourd-bottle the\\nbones had turned\\ninto fishes. Injaia s\\nabsence his curious\\nbrothers looked into\\nthe pitcher and let\\nit fall, so that it was\\nbroken in pieces,\\nOut of the broken\\npitcher there\\npoured an endless\\nflood, which covered\\nthe whole earth, so\\nthat the mountain\\ntops alone, the pres-\\nent Antilles, looked\\nout above it.\\nMakonaima, the\\ngreat invisible\\nspirit, had created\\na wonderful lofty\\ntree which bore all\\npossible kinds of\\nfruits, and he had\\ngiven it into the\\ncare of his wise son\\nSigu. While Sigu\\nwas felling the tree\\nfrom out the hollow\\ntrunk, which was\\nconnected with sub-\\nterranean springs,\\nthere flowed water\\nwhich covered the\\nwhole earth. Sigu\\nfled with his flock to\\nthe highest point of\\nthe land until the\\nflood subsided.\\nThe world has\\nbeen twice de-\\nstroyed in conse-\\nquence of the evil\\ndeeds of men the\\nfirst time by fire, the\\nsecond time by\\nwater. The wise\\nprince Marere-\\nwana, to whom the\\ncoming of the flood\\nhad been foretold,\\nescaped with his\\nfamily in a boat.\\nThis he had fas-\\ntened to a tree trunk\\nby a long rope made\\n/9\\n..v= V\\nI^J^\\nTh\\nBrett The\\nIndian Tribes\\nof Guiana,\\nLondon^ 1868.\\n4 f*^\\n4^\\n:4^\\nBrett, as\\nabove.\\n(547)", "height": "3762", "width": "2361", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0591.jp2"}, "592": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\n56\\nMaypuri\\nTupi-\\nnamba.\\nTupi.\\nBotoku-\\ndos.\\nCarayos.\\nMesaya.\\nDayaks.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nArowak-\\nCarib\\nTribes.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nTupi\\nTribes.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nTupi\\nTribes.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nIsolated\\nTribes.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nIsolated\\nTribes.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nAmerican.\\nTupi\\nTribes.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nMalays.\\nGenuine\\nMalays.\\nGEOGRAPH.\\nSITUATION.\\nAlong the\\nOrinoco.\\nBrazil.\\nBrazil.\\nBrazil.\\nOn the\\nAraguay.\\nOn the\\nAmazon\\nRiver.\\nBorneo.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nof lianas, in order\\nthat he might not\\nbe swept out to sea.\\nDuring a great\\nflood all men per-\\nished except one\\npair, who escaped\\nto Mount Tama-\\nnaku on the shore\\nof the Asiveru.\\nDuring a great\\ndeluge all the an-\\ncestors of the Tupi\\nnambas were\\ndrowned except a\\nfew, who saved\\nthemselves in a\\nboat and on high\\ntrees.\\nAwiseman,Tam-\\nanduare, at the\\ncounsel of Tupe, the\\nTupis highest be-\\ning, climbed palm\\ntrees with his fam-\\nily and there waited\\nfor the end of the\\nflood, in which all\\nthe rest of the hu-\\nman race perished.\\nThe Botokudos\\nalso tell of a great\\ndeluge.\\nAmong the Cara-\\nyos Dr. Ehrenreich\\nfound a Flood tradi-\\ntion.\\nMarcoy found a\\nFlood tradition\\namong the Mesa-\\nyas.\\nOnce when the\\nDayaks had killed\\na great boa-con-\\nstrictor and cooked\\nit,there came heavy\\nrain which lasted\\nSOURCES.\\nHumboldt\\nA nsichten der\\nNatur I.\\nHans\\nStaden\\nA usgabe von\\nStzittgart^\\n1859.\\nSiMAM DH\\nVasconcel- v\\nLOS: Noticios^\\\\ a\\ncuricsas de X^ jg \\\\J^\\nPrinz Wied\\nBrasilien II.\\nVerhandlun-\\ngen der Ber-\\nliner Anthr.\\nGes., 1888.\\nTour du\\nMonde, XV.\\nPerham A\\nSea-Dyak\\ntradition of\\nthe deluge.\\n{548)", "height": "3762", "width": "2314", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0592.jp2"}, "593": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\nPEOPLE,\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nGEOGRAPH,\\nSITUATION\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nSOURCES.\\nSandwich\\nIslanders\\nMar-\\nquesas\\nIslanders,\\nPelew\\nIslanders.\\n60\\nSociety\\nIslanders,\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nMalays.\\nPolyne-\\nsians.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nMalayans.\\nPolyne-\\nsians.\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nMalayans.\\nPolyne-\\nsians,\\nMi krone-\\nEast\\nAsiatic,\\nMalayans.\\nPolyne-\\nsians.\\nSandwich\\nIslands.\\nMarquesas\\nIslands.\\nPelew\\nIslands.\\nSociety\\nIslands.\\nuntil all the moun-\\ntains except the\\nhighest ones were\\nunder water, and\\nthe whole world\\nwas drowned. Only\\none woman escaped\\nupon a high moun-\\ntain, and brought\\nforth descendants\\nby a flre-drili which\\nshe had invented.\\nBastian gives a\\nPolynesian song\\nwhich treats of the\\ngreat flood.\\nOn the Marquesas\\nIslands the English\\nsailor, Lawson,\\nfound songs about\\na great flood.\\nThe gods having\\nbeen ill received on\\na visit to earth, sent\\nin punishment a ter-\\nrible flood at the\\ntime of the full\\nmoon. An old wo-\\nman, Milatk by\\nname, who had har-\\nbored the gods, by\\ntheir advice took\\nrefuge on a raft, but\\nperished likewise.\\nThe gods, however,\\nbrought her to life\\nagain later.\\nThe sea god Rua-\\nhatu sent a flood\\nwhich covered all\\nthe islands and the\\nhighest mountain\\ntops, and destroyed\\nall the islanders ex-\\ncept one fisherman.\\nThis man, at Rua-\\nhatu s command,\\nhad escaped with\\nwife, children, and\\none friend, and with\\nthe few domesti-\\ncated animals of the\\nisland, to the small\\nBastian\\nDie heilige\\nSage des\\nPolynesier^\\nLeipzig^ 1881.\\nL. Palmer in\\nProc. of the\\nLit. Phil.\\nSoc. of Liver-\\npool, XXX L\\nJ. KUBARY in\\nBastian\\nSemper: Die\\nPalau-Inseln.\\nW. Ellis:\\nPolynesian\\nResearches,\\nII.\\n(549)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0593.jp2"}, "594": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nFiji\\nIslanders.\\nNew\\nGuineans.\\nNew\\nHebrides\\nIslanders.\\nMincopis.\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nPapuas.\\nMixed\\nPapuas,\\nMelane-\\nPapuas.\\nUnmixed\\nPapuas,\\nGenuine\\nPapuas.\\nPapuas.\\nMixed\\nPapuas,\\nMelane-\\nsians.\\nNew Cale-\\ndonians.\\nPapuas.\\nUnmixed\\nPapuas.\\nGEOGRAPH.\\nSITUATION,\\nFiji Islands.\\nDistrict of\\nKabadi in\\nNew Guinea\\nNew Hebri-\\ndes Island,\\nAneytum.\\nAndamans.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\ncoral island Toama-\\nrama, which was\\nspared by the flood.\\nThe Fiji Islanders\\ntellof a flood which,\\naccording to some,\\nwas a general one\\naccording- to others,\\nhowever, it em-\\nbraced only parts of\\nthe earth. All agree\\nin this, that the\\nhighest mountains\\nwere covered with\\nwater, and the peo-\\nple who were left\\nalive, eight in all,\\nescaped in a boat\\nwhich, after the\\nflood subsided, was\\nleft standing upon\\nMbengga.\\nOnce the earth\\nwas flooded so that\\nonly the tops of the\\nhighest mountains\\nremained uncov-\\nered. Lohero and\\nhis younger brother\\nwere angry with\\nmen and threw a\\nhuman bone into a\\nsmall stream. Soon\\ncame forth the\\ngreat waters, which\\nformed a sea, cov-\\nered all the low\\nland and compelled\\nmen to flee to the\\nmountains. There\\nthey lived until the\\nwaters subsided.\\nOn the island of\\nAneytum there is a\\ntradition of a gen-\\neral deluge.\\nPulugu, the crea-\\ntor, being angry\\nwith men, sent a\\ngreat flood which\\ncovered the whole\\nSOURCES.\\nTh. Wil-\\nliams\\nFiji and the\\nFijians, Lon-\\ndon, i8s8.\\nChalmers\\nAND Gill:\\nWork and\\nAdiienture in\\nNe7v Guinea,\\nLo?idott, 1885.\\nZeitschr. d.\\nGes. f. Erd.\\nkundezu Ber-\\nlin, IX.\\nJour. Anthr.\\nInstitut. XII.\\n(550)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0594.jp2"}, "595": {"fulltext": "Appendix II\\nPEOPLE,\\nRACE AND\\nSTOCK.\\nGEOGRAPH.\\nSITUATION.\\nSUBSTANCE OF\\nLEGEND.\\nland and destroyed\\nall living things.\\nOnly two men and\\ntwo women es-\\ncaped, as they hap-\\npened to be in a\\nboat, and after the\\nwaters had abated\\nthey landed in the\\nneighborhood of\\nWotaemi.\\nSOURCES.\\n(551)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0595.jp2"}, "596": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0596.jp2"}, "597": {"fulltext": "Appendix III\\nEnoch\\nSince this book was written, in fact within the\\npast few months, Heinrich Zimmern, the well-\\nknown professor of Semitic languages in the\\nUniversity of Leipzig, has published what may\\nprove to be an important discovery in regard to\\nthe Patriarch Enoch.* Before mentioning this\\ndiscovery, let me remind the reader that accord-\\ning to Babylonian tradition ten mythical kings,\\nand according to one Hebrew tradition ten patri-\\narchs, existed before the Flood. Between these\\ntwo lists, one of which is found in the history of\\nBerosus, and the other in the fifth chapter of\\nGenesis, a certain general similarity has long\\nbeen recognized. In each list the tenth patri-\\narch or king (Noah or Xisuthros) is the hero of\\nthe Flood story. Further, the name of the third\\nHebrew patriarch, Enos, means a man and\\nthe name of the third Babylonian king, Amelon,\\nhas the same significance. The fourth patriarch\\nin the Bible is called Cainan, or smith/ and\\nthe fourth Babylonian king is called Ammenon,\\nwhich is interpreted workman, or master-\\nworkman, etc.\\nIt is, however, in regard to the seventh patri-\\nBiblische und Babylonische Urgeschichte, Leipzig-, igoi.\\n(553)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0597.jp2"}, "598": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\narch, Enoch, that this comparison is most inter-\\nesting. Now Enoch has always been a dark and\\npuzzling personality to students of the Bible.\\nIt is true, little is related of him in the Book of\\nGenesis, but that little is very strange. We read\\nthat Enoch was the seventh from Adam, that\\nhe lived 365 years, that he walked with God,\\nand then was not, for God had taken him.\\nTantalizingly brief as these notices are, they evi-\\ndently set before us a great hero, a man distin-\\nguished above all the other patriarchs in that,\\nlike Elijah, he did not taste of death. A fate so\\nsingular, however, would never have been as-\\ncribed to an obscure personage. From this bare\\naccount of Genesis we may be sure that Enoch\\nwas a man of renown in antiquity, of whom many\\nstrange adventures were once related. This im-\\npression is decidedly strengthened by the great\\ncloud of myth which gathered around Enoch s\\nhead in later times, and which at last expressed\\nitself in the Apocryphal books which bear his\\nname.* In these books Enoch passes as a great\\nprophet, a mighty seer to whom God revealed\\nthe future history of the world. He is repre-\\nsented as the inventor of writing, arithmetic, and\\nastrology. The credit enjoyed by the Book of\\nEnoch is shown by the fact that St. Jude un-\\nhesitatingly quotes it as an authentic work of\\nprophecy, as does also the author of the Epistles\\nascribed to St. Barnabas.\\nNow the difficulty has been that nothing we\\nknow of the life of Enoch suffices to show why\\nhe should have been singled out for such dis-\\nThe Book of Enoch, composed in the second and first\\ncenturies B.C., and The Secrets of Enoch, i to 50 a.d.\\n(554)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0598.jp2"}, "599": {"fulltext": "Appendix III\\ntinctions. The motive of the statements of\\nGenesis, and still more the motive of the vast\\nmyth of the Book of Enoch, has been altogether\\nlacking. His place in history as the seventh from\\nAdam, to which St. Jude so pointedly calls atten-\\ntion, was doubtless assigned him to single him\\nout for peculiar honors. The 365 years of his\\nlife have frequently been compared with the days\\nof the solar year, though up to the present time\\nthis comparison has thrown no real light on his\\ncharacter. His translation to Heaven, which is\\nplainly hinted at in the words he was not, for\\nGod had taken him, sets him apart as one of\\nthe most highly favored of mankind, and the\\nfact that this honor was conferred on Enoch\\nrather than on Noah, after the example of\\nXisuthros, is still more surprising. We may\\nalso remark, that as far as the character of\\nEnoch is depicted in the Book of Genesis, it is\\ndepicted as the character of a religious man.\\nEnoch s greatness did not consist in worldly ex-\\nploits, or in deeds of arms, or in the discovery\\nof human arts, but in his relation to the Most\\nHigh. Enoch walked with God. In this re-\\nspect he reminds us of the mysterious priest\\nMelchizedek. The Book of Enoch confirms this\\nimpression, and represents him consistently as\\na man of God, a prophet free from mundane\\ncares and occupations. We may sum this up by\\nsaying that the meagre but very striking allusions\\nto Enoch in the Book of Genesis mark him out as\\na man of renown, a religious hero, the subject\\nof a popular myth, and that this character is well\\nsustained in the books which bear his name.\\nThe origin of this myth Zimmern believes that\\n(555)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0599.jp2"}, "600": {"fulltext": "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge\\nhe has discovered. He remmds us that in Be-\\nrosus catalogue the seventh mythical king of\\nBabylonia is called in Greek, Evedoranchos, and\\nalso in a ritual tablet recently explained by him.*\\nZimmern recognizes the cuneiform equivalent\\nof Evedoranchos in the great prophet-priest,\\nEnmeduranki. In this tablet Enmeduranki, or\\nEvedoranchos (for we may regard this point as\\nproved), is hailed as king of Sippara, the city of\\nthe sun-god, Shamash. Shamash has taken En-\\nmeduranki into his fellowship, and has instructed\\nhim in all the secrets of Heaven and earth, and\\nespecially has bestowed on him power to pro-\\nphesy future events from signs in the earth and\\nheavens. Enmeduranki is evidently regarded\\nas the prototype and progenitor of the prophet-\\npriests of Babylonia, whose business was to fore-\\ntell the future from dreams and omens, and\\nespecially from the movements of the heavenly\\nbodies. This, it will be remembered, is the role\\nassigned to Enoch in the Apocryphal books.\\nEven the 365 years of Enoch, which are so far\\nbelow the average term of life of his contem-\\nporaries, Zimmern plausibly explains by Enme-\\nduranki s intimate association with Shamash, the\\nsun-god.\\nOn examining the text from which Zimmern\\nderives his argument, the reader will probably be\\ndisappointed by the vagueness of its allusions.\\nZimmern s identification of Enoch with the\\nseventh Babylonian king, however, is decidedly\\nBeitrage zur Kenntniss der Bab. Religion, von Dr. H. Zim-\\nmern, Leipzig, 1899 2te. Lieferung, Erste Halfte, Nr. 24.\\nZimmern asserts that Enmeduranki was pronounced Evedoranki,\\nwhich would make the resemblance complete.\\n(556)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0600.jp2"}, "601": {"fulltext": "Appendix III\\nstrengthened by certain linguistic considerations.\\nIt may be granted that Enmeduranki and Bero-\\nsus Evedoranchos are the same person. It\\nwould also appear from the tablet that Enme-\\nduranki was regarded as the prototype of the\\nBabylonian prophet-priests, and that he was the\\nsubject of an extensive myth. Now the name of\\nthe god Ea was, in Sumerian, En-ki (lord of the\\nearth). Enmeduranki appears to be an expan-\\nsion of this name, signifying, Thou art lord,\\nlord of all the earth. If, however, this old\\nmythical priest-king of Sippara bore a name\\nwhich was only an expansion of the Sumerian\\nname of Ea i.e., En-ki his name might easily\\nbe contracted again to En-ki. The resemblance\\nbetween En-ki and Enoch (Chanok) is, of course,\\nvery striking. Enoch is probably a corruption\\nof En-ki. The E would naturally be repre-\\nsented in Western Semitic by the guttural cheth,\\nor ajin, which were sometimes interchanged, so\\nthat the resemblance is really much more close\\nthan in the case of many names which in ancient\\ntimes passed from one language to another. I\\nam indebted for these suggestions to Dr. George\\nA. Barton.\\nIt is true, neither Berosus nor Zimmern s tab-\\nlet mentions the translation of Evedoranchos or\\nEnmeduranki. That element of the story of\\nEnoch appears to have been transferred from the\\nmyth of Xisuthros. But for the rest, the above\\nexplanation of the strange personality of Enoch\\nis probably the best it has as yet received.\\n(557)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0601.jp2"}, "602": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0602.jp2"}, "603": {"fulltext": "INDEXES", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0603.jp2"}, "604": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0604.jp2"}, "605": {"fulltext": "Index of Authors\\nA\\nAddis, W. E., 169, 271,\\n288, 304, 326, 327.\\nAndree, Richard, 417,\\n422, 424, 425, 426, 429, 433,\\n435, 461, 464.\\nArnold, Matthew, 23, 93.\\nAstrus, Jean, 21.\\nB\\nBacon, B. W., 35, 352.\\nBancroft, H. H., 432, 437,\\n461, 499, 500, 501.\\nBarton, Geo. A., 478, 479,\\n480.\\nBaudissin, W. W., 106, 107,\\n108, 211, 215.\\nBenzinger, 336, 350, 351, 402.\\nBerteau, Ernest, 288.\\nBoas, Franz, 425.\\nBochart, Samuel, 282, 344.\\nBohmer, 486.\\nBoscawen, W. St. Chad, 201,\\n385.\\nBourbourg, Brasseur de, 430,\\n435, 436, 437.\\nBrinton, Daniel G., 126, 417,\\n445, 449. 454, 455, 456, 498,\\n501.\\nBrugsch Bey, 19, 98, loi, 216.\\nBuckley, Edmund, 436.\\nBudde, Karl, 239, 267, 288, 304,\\n313, 350, 376, 395, 401, 482,\\n486.\\nBurnouf, Eugene, 368, 370, 506.\\nButtmann, P., 282, 363.\\n/Carpenter, D. W., 414.\\nCernik, Joseph, 470.\\nCheyne, T. K., 270, 348, 442,\\n445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 497,\\n498, 520.\\nClavigero, 431.\\nCory, L. P., 215, 226, 281, 300,\\n309, 344, 346, 369, 376, 383.\\nCreuzer, F., 214.\\nDarwin, C, 2.\\nDelitzsch, Franz, 257,291,\\n304, 312, 498.\\nDelitzsch, Fried., 213, 386, 401,\\n469.\\nDillmann, A. (T. and T. Clark,\\n1897, translation from 4th\\ned.), 86, 150, 175, 223, 270,\\n272, 276, 288, 298, 301, 302,\\n304, 308, 321, 326, 330, 337,\\n351, 385, 401, 406, 489.\\nDoane, T. W., 498, 503.\\nDuncker, Max, 384, 406.\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0puis, W., 422, 444, 445.\\nEncyclopaedia Biblica,\\n345, 442, 478, 498, 508.\\nFergusson, James, 211.\\nFiske, John, 498.\\nFurtwangler, A., 224.\\n36\\n(561)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0605.jp2"}, "606": {"fulltext": "Index of Authors\\n/^erland, Georg, 441, 442, 443,\\n444, 445, 446.\\nGesenius, W., 304, 325.\\nGoldziher, 401.\\nGrimm, J., 208, 328, 357, 419,\\n424, 499.\\nGubernatis, A. de, 211.\\nGunkel, 130, 132, 138, 406,\\nH\\nT Tahn. Joh. Georg von, 415.\\n-tA Halevy, J., 325.\\nHastings (Diet, of Bible), 332,\\n344.\\nHaupt, Paul, 226, 228, 375, 401,\\n523.\\nHeine, 236.\\nHoltzinger, H., 263, 304, 321,\\n327.\\nHommel, F., 475.\\nHopkins, E. W., 368, 370,\\n502.\\nHughes, T. P. (Diet, of Islam.),\\n315, 316.\\nHultsch, Friedrieh, 336.\\nHumboldt, A. von, 430, 431.\\nThering, R. von, 296, 297, 329,\\n370, 390, 392, 394, 406, 468,\\n509-\\n7\\nJastrow, M., 226, 227, 232,\\n233, 248, 251, 252, 375,\\n377, 382, 386, 387, 388, 389,\\n393, 394, 396, 400, 406, 408,\\n447, 471, 479-\\nJensen, P., 241, 250, 325, 348,\\n375, 387, 388, 392, 393, 394,\\n395, 396, 406, 447-\\nJensen, Peter, 337.\\nJeremias, Alfred, 226, 227, 235,\\n241, 248, 375, 386, 389, 406.\\nK\\nKant, I., 50, 79, 80.\\nKautseh, E., 304,\\nKingsborough, Lord, 430, 432.\\nKohl, Johann Georg, 429, 499.\\nKosters, 385.\\nKuhn, Adalbert, 223.\\nT ayard, A. H., 8, 517.\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0L Lenormant, F., 28, 189,\\n210, 222, 264, 272, 282, 292,\\n316, 377, 378, 422, 431, 433,\\n436, 446.\\nLuken, H., 498, 500.\\nLivingstone, D,, 424, 498.\\nLubboek, Sir John, 416.\\nLyell, Sir Charles, 341, 472,\\n475, 476, 477.\\nM^\\nM\\naspero, 187, 216, 387.\\nMeyer (Konversations\\nLexieon), 328, 329, 362, 461.\\nMovers, F. C, 106, 363.\\nMuir, 448.\\nMuller, J., 370, 440.\\nN\\nNowaek, W., 316, 336, 350,\\n351.\\no\\nr)ldenberg, H., 370.\\nOppert, J., 516.\\nPeiser, F. E., 478, 479.\\nPetermann, A., 503, 504.\\nPeters, J. P., 512, 517.\\nPetitot, Emile, 425.\\nPinehes, T. G., 227, 229.\\nPreller, 363.\\n(562)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0606.jp2"}, "607": {"fulltext": "Index of Authors\\nR\\nRassam, 517.\\nRatzel, 417, 420,\\n421,\\nE., 2, 51, 52, 77, 94,\\n422.\\nRenan,\\n106.\\nReymond, Du Bois E., 79.\\nRialle, Girard de, 432.\\nRich, C. J., 517.\\nRoth, Rudolf von, 108, 370.\\nSayce, A. H., 227, 251, 400,\\n447.\\nScheil, Fr. V., 346, 400, 407,\\n408, 409.\\nScherzer, Karl, 435.\\nSchirren, K. C. I., 441.\\nSchoolcraft, Henry Rowe, 429.\\nSchrader, E., 270, 345, 395, 447,\\n448, 477, 495, 516.\\nSchultz, H., 17.\\nSchwarz, Franz von, 417, 439.\\nSiegfried and Stade, 304.\\nSmith, George, 8, 10, no, 197,\\n375.\\nSmith, W. R., 332.\\nStade, B., 263, 316, 407.\\nStoll, O., 435.\\nSuess, Eduard, 468, 469, 470,\\n477, 478.\\nSymonds, J. A., 191.\\npylor, E. B., 384, 416, 422,\\nJ- 427, 444, 464.\\nu\\nTTsener, H., 361, 366, 367,450,\\n452, 453.\\nw\\nTxraitz, Theodor, 417, 441,\\nVV 442, 443.\\nWarner, William F., 151.\\nWeber, A., 370, 371.\\nWellhausen, J., 262, 313.\\nWhite, Andrew D., 414, 498.\\nWilson, Horace, 282.\\nWinchell, A., 259.\\nWindischmann, F. R., 206.\\n^immern, H., 251, 375, 386,\\n387, 388, 389, 393, 396,\\n397, 403, 478, 479, 480.\\nZockler, D. O., 414.\\n(563)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0607.jp2"}, "608": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0608.jp2"}, "609": {"fulltext": "Index\\nAbel, 37, 258-278 mean-\\ning of name, 268.\\nAben, Ezra, 20, 21.\\nAdapa, tablet discovered,\\n251 problem of everlasting\\nlife, 252-253 comparison\\nwith Genesis, 253-255; Adapa\\nnot Adam, 255.\\nAlgonquin flood myths, 426-\\n429.\\nAltar, first mention of, 331.\\nAloadse, 501, 502.\\nAmos, description of solar\\neclipse, 436-437, 477.\\nAngels, fall of, 307 called sons\\nof God, 304, 307-308 in\\nGreek food myth, 450, 453.\\nAnimals, in Eden, 159, 166-\\n167 in flood, 339, 390 in\\nGreek flood myth, 453, 470\\nanimal food permitted, 353-\\n354.\\nAnnunaki, 393, 471.\\nAntediluvian patriarchs, 278-\\n282, 381-382; classical heroes,\\n281, 282 age of, 283 fate\\nof, 288-291 meaning of\\nnames, 297-298 age limited,\\n3 10-3 1 1 table of, 289.\\nAppollodorus, on flood, 362,\\n365.\\nArarat, 343 identified with\\nElburg, mythical sky-moun-\\ntain, 345 Berosus tradition\\nsupports Biblical tradition,\\n345, 346 not identical with\\nMt. Nisir, 344-346 why\\nArarat chosen, 347-348 evi-\\ndence of Scheil s fragment,\\n346 evidently mythical\\nmountain, 347-349 Isaiah on\\nmythical mountain, 348 vast\\nheight in Genesis, 348.\\nArk, 325, 334 window of, 330,\\n337 description of, 334-339.\\nDeucalion s, 362, 365, 367,\\n451, 481, 484; Babylonian,\\n350, 378-383, 389, 392, 440,\\n469-470 course of, 345, 346,\\n462. See Deluge.\\nArmenia. See Ararat.\\nAstruc, discovery of the three\\ndocuments, 21.\\nAtlantis, myth of, 364.\\nB\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0pabel. Tower of text of story,\\n492-493 no reference to\\nflood, 493-494 no Baby-\\nlonian counterpart of, 495-\\n496 story composite, 497\\nmyth not widely diffused,\\n497, 498, 499 Mexican leg-\\nend of, 499-501 Hindu par-\\nallel to, 502-503 African\\nparallel to, 503-504 Greek\\nlegends, 501-502, 504-505\\nconfusion of tongues and\\nlogos, 505-508 founding of\\nBabylon, 508 the first city,\\n509 temple towers, 512\\nmounds associated with Tell-\\nNimrud, Babil, Birs Nim-\\nrud, Amran Ibn. Ali, 515,\\n516.\\n(565)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0609.jp2"}, "610": {"fulltext": "Index\\nBabil, description of, 516-517\\nage of, 516.\\nBirs-Nimrud, description of,\\n517-518 age of, 520 Her-\\nodotus on, 518 Nebuchad-\\nnezzar on, 518-519 connec-\\ntion with Tower of Babil,\\n520.\\nBabylon. See Babel.\\nBabylonian literature, in Ca-\\nnaan, 401-407 discovery of,\\nlO-II.\\nBehemoth, 138.\\nBel and Dragon, 213.\\nBerosus, 375-385 editions of,\\n376, note; genealogical table,\\n281 account of deluge, 376-\\n380 peculiarities of deluge\\nstory, 380-383 later origin,\\n467 landing place of ark,\\n346-347.\\nBirds, in ark, 326-330 in crea-\\ntion story, 457 used by navi-\\ngators, 328-330.\\nBitumen, 469. See Babel.\\nBlood, significance of, 354.\\nBundahesh, Persian flood tradi-\\ntion, 190, 194-195, 371-372\\nMashya and Mashyana, 194-\\n196 serpent, 217.\\nCain, 37, 38, 258-277 story\\nmythical, 259-260 mark\\nof, 261, 264, 276; fratricide\\nof, 271-277 Wellhausen s\\nexplanation of, 260-263\\nLenormant s explanation of,\\n264-265 Budde s explana-\\ntion of, 267-268 author of\\nstory, 258; a city builder, 295;\\nnot son of Adam, 290 gene-\\nalogy of, 293 translation of\\nstory, 270-277 summary of\\nargument, 269-270.\\nCalendar, Babylonian, 264-265,\\nexistence of assumed, 339,\\nnote; Lunar month, 350,\\nnote solar year adopted in\\nCanaan, 350, note.\\nCanaan, son of Ham, 481 son of\\nNoah, 483. See also, 486-489.\\nChaos, all creation stories begin\\nwith, 89, 125, 126, note as\\novercome by God, 1 19-140;\\npersonification of evil, 130-\\n142 its nature unknown,\\n142 represented in all myth-\\nologies, 140-141, note. See\\nTiaffiat, 128.\\nCherubim, no example in He-\\nbrew art, 218 in Solomon s\\ntemple, wooden in brazen sea,\\nmetal, 218-219 animal form\\nof, 219 winged, 219-220\\nin i8th Psalm, 219 in Eze-\\nkiel, 219-220; two functions\\nof, 219-220 which older,\\n222 origin of name, 222\\nassociation with Griffin, 223.\\nCity, first city built by farmer,\\n295-297 founding of Babel,\\n492.\\nClimatic conditions differently\\nrepresented by Jehovist and\\npriestly writer, 156-158.\\nColenso, criticism negative, 23;\\ntrial of, 23.\\nCosmology, Babylonian, 240\\npriestly writers, 339. See\\nChap. I.\\nCosmogony. See Creation.\\nCovenant, 338, 355.\\nCreation, 70 a practical ques-\\ntion, 71, 77 attitude of\\nscience toward, 75-78 order\\nof life, 83-84 Not e nihilo,\\n104, 127, 454.\\nAccounts of: Priestly\\nWriter, 89-93 Jehovist, 140,\\n148-155, part lost, 140;\\nEgyptian, 96-102 Hindu,\\n95 Greek, 96 Babylonian,\\n109-124; agreement with\\nGenesis, iii, 115, 116-117,\\n119, 120, 127, 130; differ-\\nences, 119, 127, 156 Persian,\\n(566)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0610.jp2"}, "611": {"fulltext": "Index\\npart of Zoroaster s system,\\n102-105 Phoenician, 105-\\n109 Damascius, 120-121\\nBerosus, 121-124.\\nCritical method, results of, 24.\\nCuneiform inscriptions, 8-9\\nAdapa legend, 251-253, Tel-\\nel-Amarna tablets, 251, 335,\\n402-403 creation tablets,\\n110-118, 129, 241 epic of\\nIzdubar, 228-251 Peiser s\\nfragment, 407, 478-479, also\\nappendix Scheil s fragment,\\n407-410 on Sabbath, 143-\\n145.\\nCubit, 334 borrowed from\\nBabylon and Egypt, 335.\\nCurse, primal, 162, 175, 177,\\n178 partly remitted, 332.\\nB\\nT^ead, condition of, Babylo-\\nnian conception, 246.\\nDeath, not caused by fall, 177,\\n181.\\nDeucalion. See Deluge.\\nDeluge, two Hebrew accounts,\\n317-318 accounts inter-\\nwoven, 317-318 inconsis-\\ntencies between Hebrew ver-\\nsions, 318-322 no universal\\ndeluge, 412, 415 wide dif-\\nfusion of tradition, 412, 415\\nfossils, 413, 414-415.\\nJehovist s account of, 324-\\n333; naif conceptions in, 325,\\n327, 332; mention of ark, 325\\nvegetation not destroyed, 327;\\nduration of flood, 329, 358-\\n359 employment of birds,\\n327-330 building of ark\\nomitted, 325 exit omitted,\\n330 altar mentioned, 330-\\n331 Noah s sacrifice, 330-\\n332 Jahveh s promise to\\nNoah, 332-333.\\nPriestly Writer s account\\nof, 333-357 cause of deluge\\nstated, 334 description of\\nark, 334-338 mentions cov-\\nenant, 338 mention of ani-\\nmals, 339-340 physical\\ncauses of deluge, 339-340\\nuniversal, 340-341 vegetation\\nuninjured, 341 height of Ar-\\narat, 341, 349 Ararat, site\\nof, 343-349 duration of\\nflood, 349-352, 359-360 in-\\nterest in animals, 352 cov-\\nenant sign of rainbow, 355-\\n356; completeness of ac-\\ncount, 357 less original, 357-\\n360.\\nDiffusion of flood tradi-\\ntions, in antiquity found\\namong Babylonians, Hindus,\\nHebrews and Greeks, 361\\nPersian doubtful, 361 Phoe-\\nnician lost, 361.\\nTraditions Greek, 361-\\n367 Hindu, 368-371 Per-\\nsian, 371-373 Egyptian,\\nno tradition, 373 Arab,\\nno tradition, 373 Babylo-\\nnian, from two sources, Bero-\\nsus and cuneiform inscrip-\\ntions, 375; discovery of cunei-\\nform account, 375 text of,\\n375; translations of, 375-376\\ncompared with Hebrew, 397-\\n407 other Babylonian flood\\ntraditions, 407-410.\\nPrimitive flood traditions,\\nnature of, 416-417 geo-\\ngraphical distribution of, 417;\\nLithurian, 418-419 Austral-\\nian, 419 Hawaiian, 419-421;\\nCaroline Islands, 420 Lee-\\nward Islands, 421-422\\nAsiatic, 423-424 European,\\n424 African, none, 424\\nChinese, 423, note; Ameri-\\ncan, 424-427; Eskimo, 424-\\n425 Algonquin, 426-427\\nOjibway, 427-429 Mexican,\\n429-434 Guatemalan, 435-\\n436 Peruvian, 436-437.\\n(567)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0611.jp2"}, "612": {"fulltext": "Index\\nDiscrepancies explained, 6, 7.\\nDove, employment by naviga-\\ntors, 328-329 in Izdubar\\nepic, 395 in Mexican tradi-\\ntion, 431 introduced into\\nGreece, 367.\\nDragon, 132, 136, 138, 141\\nstory of Bel and Dragon, 213.\\nEa, Babylonian god, 387-388\\nin Adapa legend, 251-\\n252.\\nEabani, 229 Babylonian\\nAdam, 229-234 death of,\\n239. 251.\\nEarth, centre of universe, 83.\\nEden, Garden of, supernatural,\\n151, note; site unknown, 151-\\n153; rivers surrounding, 152,\\n153; Jehovistic conception of\\n153. 156, 157 sources of Je-\\nhovist s account, 154, 155\\nuniversal tradition of, 186-\\n203; traditions of Egyptian,\\n186, 187 Zoroastrian, 189-\\n190; Hindu, 188-189; Greeic,\\n190-191.\\nEloist, 40, 46, 49 style of, 40\\npassages from, 48, 49; dreams,\\n47.\\nEnoch, 39, 266, 290, 291, 295,\\nsee also Appendix III.;\\nseventh from Adam, 291\\nsolar deity, 292 Book of,\\n305 Peter and Jude, 307,\\n308.\\nEve, creation of, 154 moral\\nsignificance, 159-162 refer-\\nence in Talmud, 160; referred\\nto by our Lord, 160 Baby-\\nlonian counterpart, 230, 232,\\n251; children of, 258.\\nEvil, source of unexplained,\\n183; connection with Tiamat,\\n133, 139-140, 142, 143.\\nEzekiel, 219, 223, 242, 335, 356,\\n407; cubit, 334.\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0pall of man, dogma of, 15-16\\nhow regarded by Biblical\\nwriter, 16-17 Jehovistic ac-\\ncount of, 168-176 death not\\ncaused by, 167-168, 181, 254\\na moral difficulty, 167 con-\\nsciousness of nakedness, 171-\\n172 moral responsibility be-\\ngins, 180-182; double motive\\nin story, 180 sin and knowl-\\nedge, 180-181 Babylonian\\naccount, 196; parallelism with\\nGenesis not complete, 196\\nZoroastrian account, 192-195;\\ndiscussion of cylinder, 196-\\n202.\\nFirmament, 81, 82.\\nFour ages of the world: Egyp-\\ntian, 188 Hindu, 188 Zo-\\nroastrian, 189 Grecian, 188\\nnot mentioned in Bible, 191-\\n192; Mexican, 430; Dr. Brin-\\nton on, 417, 454-455 rela-\\ntion to deluge, 455-456,\\n/Genealogical tables of antedi-\\nluvians, number of, 278\\nfirst, 279-284 second, 279-\\n284, 288 third, 280, 281, 284;\\ncomparison of first, second,\\nand third, 284 Berosus, 281\\nHindu, 282 Chinese and\\nEgyptian, 282 Phoenician,\\n299 comparison with Greek\\ndeities, 282, 299, 300.\\nGenesis, date of, 42, 46, 49\\ncompared with other sacred\\nbooks, 7,8; documents of,\\n19 evidence of prophetical\\nbooks and Psalms, 15, 17\\nrepetitions prove different\\nauthors, 25-28 proofs of\\nthree sources, 28-40; charac-\\nteristics of Elohist, 40 dis-\\ntinctions between Elohist and\\n(568)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0612.jp2"}, "613": {"fulltext": "Index\\nJehovist, 46, 49-50, 155,\\n158 accounts of flood inter-\\nmingled, 267, 268, 318 not\\nhistory, 55-57 a collection\\nof inspired myths, 68 proof\\nof divine inspiration, 75; mi-\\nraculous element of, 57; study\\nof creation, 79 difficulty of\\naccepting statements as facts,\\n82, 84; time consumed in\\ncreation (controversy), 84-87;\\nresemblance to epic of Izdu-\\nbar, 249-250 proof of com-\\nposite authorship, 278, 280-\\n281; genealogical tables, 278-\\n281 sons of God, 303, 304\\nlife of man limited, 312-314\\nan anthropopathic concep-\\ntion, 324 Redactor, 324 lit-\\nurgical distinction, 326 part\\nof Jehovist s cosmology lost,\\n140; curse of ground remitted,\\n332; pre-exilic, 401.\\nGeology, controversy ended,\\n413 upheaved fossils, 413-\\n414 a source of flood tradi-\\ntions, 425.\\nGiants, 304-306, 314-316 Mo-\\nhammedan myth, 315 tradi-\\ntions of, 315, 316 origin of\\nHebrew traditions, 315-316.\\nGod, priestly writers concep-\\ntion of, 44; Jehovist s concep-\\ntion of, 45 development of\\nidea in O. T., 58-59; con-\\nception in Genesis, 74 sex-\\nless, 93; anterior to creation,\\n93.\\nH\\nTTam, son of Noah, 481 fa-\\nther of Canaan, 482; not\\nson of Noah, 483.\\nHerodotus, unacquainted with\\nflood, 362; on language, 505\\naccount of Babylon, 516, 518.\\nHesiod, unacquainted with\\nflood, 362, 455 Catalogue\\nof Women, 362, note; on\\ncreation, 96 four ages, 190.\\nHistory, 55-57 not imme-\\ndiately religious, 60; sources\\nof, 60-61.\\nInspiration, definition difficult,\\n13 test of, 14 prophets\\nand psalmists conception of,\\n15-16.\\nIsaiah, 132, 135, 348, 407.\\nIzdubar epic, 225-249, 384-\\n397, 467-476 antiquity of,\\n226, 385-386 signs of zo-\\ndiac in, 226-227 a collec-\\ntion of narratives, 226, 228\\ncreation of Eabani, his re-\\nsemblance to Adam, 229-230\\nmention of Uhat, her resem-\\nblance to Eve, 231-233 Isle\\nof the Blessed, 238, 239, 241,\\n243, 381 a reminiscence of\\nEzekiel, 242 Izdubar visits\\nthe dead, 247-248 a simi-\\nlarity to Genesis, 249\\nHaupt s text of, 375 trans-\\nlators of, 375 more exact\\nthan Berosus, 467.\\nJapheth, 486-489 ancestor of\\nPhoenicians, 489.\\nJehovist, 40 style of, 40, 44,\\n52, 358, 359 subjectivity,\\n49; philosophy of, 50; idea\\nof sin, 51 aversion to cities,\\n510-511; anthropopathic\\nconception of God, 57, 158-\\nI59\u00c2\u00bb 308, 309, 324, 327, 332,\\n492-493 conception of\\nEden, 148, 149, 153, 158\\nwater a friendly element, 156;\\ndoes not mention firmament,\\n156 superiority to Elohist\\nand priestly writer, 49 gene-\\nalogy of Cain, 279, 284, 285,\\n(569)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0613.jp2"}, "614": {"fulltext": "Index\\n292-293 account of deluge\\nolder, 360 follows more\\nclosely Babylonian account,\\n385.\\nJeremiah, 235, 261, 262, 513.\\nJerome, 344.\\nJosephus, 308, 344, 346, 376.\\nJubilees, Book of, 308.\\nK\\nK\\nenites, descendants of Cain,\\n261-264 aversion to\\nwine, 262.\\nT amech, 38, 264, 267, 26S,\\n295 song of, 40, 264, 267,\\n298 translation of, 298.\\nLanguage, myths of primitive,\\n504-508.\\nLeviathan, mythical monster,\\n134-137, 156 Lord of Te-\\nhom, 137; mentioned by\\nIsaiah, Job, Psalms, 134-137,\\n139-\\nLife, infused by God, 150, 312,\\n313 blood, essence of, 354\\nsacredness of, 354, 355.\\nLight, 80.\\nM\\nMan, creation of place in Na-\\nture, 84 not deathless,\\n177 according to Zoroaster,\\n192 in the Bundahesh, 194-\\n196; Lithurian tradition, 418\\nGuatemalan, 435.\\nMetals, Hebrews ignorant of,\\n299.\\nMexico, traditions of flood in,\\n430-431 Coxcox, its mytho-\\nlogical Noah, 430-431 myth\\nof confusion of tongues, 500,\\n501 Montezuma, 500.\\nMizraim, 491.\\nMoses, not author of Genesis,\\nII, 12 not named in Gene-\\nsis, 29.\\nMyth, history idealized, 192\\nimportance of, 63, 66 more\\ntrue to life than critical his-\\ntory, 65 not the work of one,\\nbut of humanity, 66 German\\nand Norse, 208 composed\\nwith a purpose, 260 Schir-\\nren s sun myth, 441, 443\\nGerland s ether myth, 441-\\n445 Cheyne s ether myth,\\n445-449 Usener on sun\\nmyth, 450-453.\\nN\\nTS^isir, 344, 345, 447, 448;\\nlanding place of ark, 394,\\n395, 474, 475.\\nNoah, 305, 306, 315, 319, 320,\\n321, 325-330 translation,\\n382 prophesies concerning\\nbirth of, 484-486 a farmer,\\n482, 484 discovers vine,\\n482, 484-486 drunkenness\\nof, 482-484 Coxcox, Mexi-\\ncan Noah, 430-431 a right-\\neous man, 333, 358. See\\nalso Deluge.\\no\\nOgyges. See Deluge.\\nOineus, 490.\\nOjibways, flood traditions of,\\n427-429.\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0paradise, Ezekiel s conception\\n-t of, 220, 221. See Eden.\\nPele, legend of, 420.\\nPentateuch, Aben Ezra s criti-\\ncism, 20 evidences of three\\ndocuments, 40 (see 19) com-\\npilation late, 29-35; composi-\\ntion of, 29-35 Samaritan,\\n288, 327 Septuagint, 288.\\n(570)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0614.jp2"}, "615": {"fulltext": "Index\\nPeruvians, civilization distinct\\nfrom Mexican, 436.\\nPhilo Judaeus, 308.\\nPhytios, 490.\\nPlato, on heroes, 309 Scholiast\\non, 363 flood traditions in,\\n364 on language, 504-505.\\nPolygamy, 94.\\nPolytheism, 158.\\nPopol Vuh, Guatemalan writ-\\ning, 435 antiquity of,\\n435.\\nPreadamite man, origin of idea,\\n259, note.\\nPriestly Writer, 40, 41, 45, 46,\\n323 style of, 41, 357, 358\\nobjective, 49 period allowed\\nfor creation, 85, 86 water a\\nhostile element, 156 multi-\\nplication of the race, 162\\nnarrative broken, 286 gene-\\nalogy of Cain unknown to,\\n292 sons of Noah first men-\\ntioned by, 333 account of\\ndeluge resembles Berosus\\naccount, 384.\\nPriests code, 40.\\nPsalms, 133, 134.\\nPsammetichus, 505.\\nR\\nDahab, 132-134, 156; men-\\ntioned with Leviathan by\\nIsaiah, Job, and Psalms, 138,\\n139, 143-\\nRain, ancient idea of, 81-82\\nJehovist s explanation, 157\\nas cause of deluge, 326, 327,\\n339-340.\\nRainbow, token of covenant,\\n355 Gentile ideas, 356-357\\nin Lithurian legend, 418-419\\nin Ezekiel, 356, and Sirach,\\n356.\\nRaven, 326-329, 396 super-\\nstitiously regarded, 328.\\nRedactor, 302, 318, 324, 326,\\n327.\\nSabbath, place at end of cre-\\nation, 143 observed by\\nBabylonians, 144 Jewish,\\n145, 147.\\nSacrifice, first mentioned, 258\\noriginated with Cain, 271 of\\nNoah, 330-331 difference\\nbetween Jehovist and priestly\\nwriter regarding, 331 in\\nIzdubar epic, 396.\\nSanchuniathon, 105, 106, 299,\\n300, 309, note.\\nSatan, late allusion to, 165 ser-\\npent not Satan, 165.\\nSatapatha Brahmana, 349, 369.\\nScience, obligations of to Gene-\\nsis, 2-3 methods of, 77-78.\\nSeptuagint, on patriarchs, 288\\nvariation, 327.\\nSerpent, symbol of evil in\\nmythologies, 164 not a\\nspirit, 165 a mythical being,\\n167, 212 in Babylonian tra-\\ndition foe of God, 213 in\\nO. T., 212-213 in Apoc-\\nrypha, 213 sacred object to\\nGreeks, 214 as regarded by\\nPhoenicians, 215-216 among\\nPersians, 217 worship origi-\\nnated in Egypt, 215 in Iz-\\ndubar epic, 245 in Algon-\\nquin tradition, 426 Ojibway\\nlegend. Serpent King, 427\\n428.\\nSeth, Adam s son, 301 father\\nof Enos, 302 posterity not\\ncontrasted with Cain s, 305.\\nSit-napistim, Babylonian Noah,\\n239 resemblance to Enoch,\\n239 reference to deluge,\\n244 identical with Xisu-\\nthros, 377 translated, 241,\\n380, 382, 397 Cheyne s al-\\nlusion to, 447 Berosus story,\\n377-380 cuneiform account,\\n384-397.\\nSodom, destruction of, 405.\\n(571)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0615.jp2"}, "616": {"fulltext": "Index\\n/i f^9 7\\nSons of God, linguistic difficul-\\nties, 303-304, 312-314 an-\\ngelic beings, 308 resem-\\nblance to Gentile myths, 308-\\n309 nature deities, 311 in\\nlate writings, 308.\\nSun, ancient idea of, 82-83.\\nSurippak, 467-469 meaning\\nof name, 469.\\nSword, flaming, not ordinary\\nweapon, 224 possesses in-\\nherent energy, 224 akin to\\nsword of Jahveh, lightning,\\n224.\\nT\\nT^almud, 29 on creation of\\nJ- Eve, 160; on Adam s\\ndeath, 168.\\nTatian, the Diatessaron, 4.\\nTehom, Hebrew chaos, 127,\\n138^ 139, 140, 339 equiva-\\nlent to Babylonian Tiamat,\\nIII, 130 word used by\\nIsaiah, 132 subject to Levia-\\nthan, 137.\\nTemptation, 164, 167-171 pos-\\nsible representation in Baby-\\nlonian seal, 197-201.\\nTiamat, Babylonian principle\\nof chaos. III, 112, 115, 128,\\n130-131, 136, 156 equiva-\\nlent to Tehom, iii, 129-130\\nHebrew counterpart in Ra-\\nhab, 129, 130-138 destruc-\\ntion of, 114-115, 129-130;\\noriginal role of in creation\\nstory, 138-139.\\nTitans, 501.\\nTraditions of savage nations\\nunreliable, 415-416.\\nTree, of knowledge, 210 origi-\\nnal conception of Jehovist,\\n211^212 prophetical trees\\nin O. T., 210-212 of life,\\n178, 184, 207 Babylonian\\nrepresentations, 202 wide\\ndiffusion of idea, 203 origin\\nof Gentile belief in, 203-204\\nSoma plant of Hindus, 204\\nGermanic myth of Induna,\\n205, 208 Haoma plant of\\nPersians, 205-206 nectar of\\nGreeks, 206 apples of Hes-\\nperides, 206 ancient name\\nof Babylon, Place of the\\nTree of Life, 210 in Izdu-\\nbarepic, 238, 244, 250 name\\nin Izdubar epic, 245 Adapa\\nand food of gods, 252.\\nw\\nWater, hostile element in\\nfirst account of creation,\\n156 friendly element in sec-\\nond, 156.\\nWilliams, cylinder, 136.\\nWine, 482.\\nWoman, creation of, 159-160\\nrelation to man, 160-161\\ndestiny of, 175-177.\\nWord, doctrine of, 507.\\nXisuthros, identical with Sit-\\nnapistim, 377; translation\\nof, 380, 381, 382.\\nZend Avesta, 190, 194, 205,\\n371.\\nZiggurats, 512.\\nZoroaster, four ages of, 189\\ncreation of man, 192 Bun-\\ndahesh, 194-195.\\nf^\\nyf\\nH\\n(572)", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0616.jp2"}, "617": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0617.jp2"}, "618": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0618.jp2"}, "619": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0619.jp2"}, "620": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0620.jp2"}, "621": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0621.jp2"}, "622": {"fulltext": "Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process.\\nNeutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide\\nTreatment Date: June 2005\\nPreservationTechnologies\\nA WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION\\n1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive\\nCranberry Township. PA 16065\\n(724)779-2111", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0622.jp2"}, "623": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3762", "width": "2228", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0623.jp2"}, "624": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4068", "width": "2639", "jp2-path": "bookofgenesisinl01worc_0624.jp2"}}