Chapter VIII: Introduction (6)

=20‒23. Sixth work: Aquatic and aërial animals.=――_Let the waters swarm with swarming things――living creatures, and let fowl fly, etc._] The conjunction of two distinct forms of life under one creative act has led Gunkel to surmise that two originally separate works have been combined in order to bring the whole within the scheme of six days. Bennett (rendering _and fowl that may fly_) thinks the author was probably influenced by some ancient tradition that birds as well as fishes were produced by the water (so Rashi and Abraham Ibn Ezra on 2¹⁹). The conjecture is attractive, and the construction has the support of all Greek versions and Vulgate; but it is not certain that the verb can mean “_produce_ a swarm.” More probably (in connexions like the present: see Exodus 7²⁸ [Yahwist] [English Version 8³], Psalms 105³⁰) the sense is simply _teem with_, indicating the place or element in which the swarming creatures abound, in which case it cannot possibly govern עוֹף as objective.――שֶׁרֶץ has a sense something like ‘vermin’: _i.e._ it never denotes ‘a swarm,’ but is always used of the creatures that appear in swarms (_v.i._).――נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה] literally, ‘living soul’; used here collectively, and with the sense of נפש weakened, as often, to ‘individual’ or ‘being’ (contrast verse ³⁰ and see on 2⁷). The creation of the aquatic animals marks, according to Old Testament ideas, the first appearance of life on the earth, for life is nowhere predicated of the vegetable kingdom.――_over the earth in front of the firmament_] _i.e._ in the atmosphere, for which Hebrew has no special name.――=21.= _created_] indistinguishable from _made_ in verse ²⁵.――_the great sea monsters_] The introduction of this new detail in the execution of the fiat is remarkable. הַתַּנִינִם here denotes actual marine animals; but this is almost the only passage where it _certainly_ bears that sense (Psalms 148⁷). There are strong traces of mythology in the usage of the word: Isaiah 27¹ 51⁹ (Gunkel _Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 30‒33), Psalms 74¹³(?); and it may have been originally the name of a class of legendary monsters like Ti’āmat. The mythological interpretation lingered in Jewish exegetical tradition (see below).――=22.= _And God blessed them, etc._] In contrast with the plants, whose reproductive powers are included in their creation (verse ¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), these living beings are endowed with the right of self-propagation by a separate act――a benediction (see verse ²⁸). The distinction is natural.――_be fruitful, etc._] “There is nothing to indicate that only a single pair of each kind was originally produced” (Bennett); the language rather suggests that whole species, in something like their present multitude, were created.

* * * * *

=20.= ישרצו ... שרץ] On syntax see Davidson § 73, _R._ 2. The root
has in Aramaic the sense of ‘creep,’ and there are many passages
in Old Testament where that idea would be appropriate (Leviticus
11²⁹ᐧ ⁴¹⁻⁴³ etc.); hence Robertson Smith (_Lectures on the
Religion of the Semites_², 293), ‘creeping vermin generally.’
But here and Genesis 8¹⁷ 9⁷, Exodus 1⁷ 7²⁸, Psalms 105³⁰ it
can only mean ‘teem’ or ‘swarm’; and Driver (_Genesis_ 12) is
probably right in extending that meaning to all the passages
in Hebrew Genesis 1²⁰ ᶠᐧ, Exodus 7²⁸, Psalms 105³⁰ are the only
places where the construct with cognitive accusative appears;
elsewhere the animals themselves are subject of the verb. The
words, except in three passages, are peculiar to the vocabulary
of Priestly-Code.――But for the fact that שֶׁרָץ never means ‘swarm,’
but always ‘swarming thing,’ it would be tempting to take it as
construct state before נפש חיה (LXX, Aquila, Vulgate). As it is,
נ׳ ח׳ has all the awkwardness of a gloss (see 2¹⁹). The phrase is
applied once to man, 2⁷ (Yahwist); elsewhere to animals,――mostly
in Priestly-Code (Genesis 1²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ³⁰ 9¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶, Leviticus
11¹⁰ᐧ ⁴⁶ etc.).――ועוף יעופף] The order of words as in verse ²²
(והעוף ירב), due to emphasis on the new subject. The use of
descriptive imperfect (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion,
Vulgate) is mostly poetic, and for reasons given above must here
be refused.――על פני] = ‘in front of’: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s._
פנה, II. 7, a,――LXX inserts ויהי כן at the end of the verse.――=21.=
התנינם] It is naturally difficult to determine exactly how far
the Hebrew usage of the word is coloured by mythology. The
important point is that it represents a power hostile to God,
not only in the passages cited above, but also in Job 7¹².
There are resemblances in the Aramaic _tinnīn_, a fabulous
amphibious monster, appearing now on land and now in the sea
(personification of the waterspout? _Lectures on the Religion of
the Semites_², 176), concerning which the Arabian cosmographers
have many wonderful tales to relate (Mas‛ūdī, i. 263, 266 ff.;
Kazwīnī, Ethé’s translation i. 270 ff.). Rashi, after explaining
literally, adds by way of Haggada that these are ‘Leviathan and
his consort,’ who were created male and female, but the female
was killed and salted for the righteous in the coming age,
because if they had multiplied the world would not have stood
before them (compare Enoch 60⁷⁻⁹, 4 Esdras 6⁴⁹⁻⁵², _Bereshith
Rabba_ chapter 7).¹――ואת כל־נפש הח׳ Compare 9¹⁰, Leviticus 11¹⁰; נ׳
though without article is really determined by כל (but see
Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 209
(1)).――אשר שרצו] א׳, accusative of definition, as שֶׁרֶץ in verse
²⁰.――=22.= פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ] highly characteristic of Priestly-Code (only 3 times
elsewhere).

¹ In Babylonian _tannînu_ is said to be a mythological
designation of the earth (Jensen _Die Kosmologie der
Babylonier_ 161; Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients_², 136⁷; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_
109²⁴); but that throws no light on Hebrew.

* * * * *

=24, 25. Seventh work: Terrestrial animals.=――=24.= _Let the earth bring forth living creatures_] נפש חיה (again collectively) is here a generic name for _land_ animals, being restricted by what precedes――‘living animals that spring from the earth.’ Like the plants (verse ¹²), they are boldly said to be produced by the earth, their bodies being part of the earth’s substance (2⁷ᐧ ¹⁹); this could not be said of fishes in relation to the water, and hence a different form of expression had to be employed in verse ²⁰.――The classification of animals (best arranged in verse ²⁵) is threefold: (1) wild animals, חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ (roughly, _carnivora_); (2) domesticated animals, בְּהֵמָה (_herbivora_); (3) reptiles, רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה, including perhaps creeping insects and very small quadrupeds (see Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 518). A somewhat similar threefold division appears in a Babylonian tablet――‘cattle of the field, beasts of the field and creatures of the city’ (Jensen _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 42 f.; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_ 112 f.).――=25.= _God saw that it was good_] The formula distinctly marks the separation of this work from the creation of man, which follows on the same day. The absence of a benediction corresponding to verses ²²ᐧ ²⁸ is surprising, but it is idle to speculate on the reason.

* * * * *

=24.= The distinctions noted above are not strictly observed
throughout the Old Testament. בהמה (from a root signifying ‘be
dumb’――Aramaic and Ethiopic) denotes collectively, _first_,
animals as distinguished from man (Exodus 9¹⁹ etc.), but chiefly
the larger mammals; _then_, domestic animals (the dumb creatures
with which man has most to do), (Genesis 34²³ 36⁶ etc.). Of
_wild_ animals specially it is seldom used alone (Deuteronomy
32²⁴, Habakkuk 2¹⁷), but sometimes with an addition (אֶרֶץ, שָׂדֶה,
יַעַר) which marks the unusual reference. As a noun of unity,
Nehemiah 2 ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴. See Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._――חַיְתוֹ אֶרֶץ] an
archaic phrase in which וֹ represents the old case ending of the
nominative, _u_ or _um_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 90 _n_). So Psalms
79²; חיתו in other combinations Isaiah 56⁹, Zephaniah 2¹⁴, Psalms
104¹¹; Psalms 50¹⁰ 104²⁰. In sense it is exactly the same as the
commoner חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ 1²⁵ᐧ ³⁰ 9²ᐧ ¹⁰ etc.), and usually denotes _wild_
animals, though sometimes animals in general (ζῶον).――רמש and שרץ
naturally overlap; but the first name is derived from the manner
of movement, and the second from the tendency to swarm (Driver
_l.c._).

* * * * *

=26‒28. Eighth work: Creation of man.=――As the narrative approaches its climax, the style loses something of its terse rigidity, and reveals a strain of poetic feeling which suggests that the passage is moulded on an ancient creation hymn (Gunkel). The distinctive features of this last work are: (a) instead of the simple jussive we have the cohortative of either self-deliberation or consultation with other divine beings; (b) in contrast to the lower animals, which are made each after its kind or type, man is made in the image of God; (c) man is designated as the head of creation by being charged with the rule of the earth and all the living creatures hitherto made.――=26.= _Let us make man_] The difficulty of the 1st person plural has always been felt.

Amongst the Jews an attempt was made to get rid of it by
reading נַֽעֲשֶׂה as participle Niphal――a view the absurd grammatical
consequences of which are trenchantly exposed by Abraham Ibn
Ezra. The older Christian commentaries generally find in the
expression an allusion to the Trinity (so even Calvin); but that
doctrine is entirely unknown to the Old Testament, and cannot
be implied here. In modern times it has sometimes been explained
as plural of self-deliberation (Tuch), or after the analogy of
the ‘we’ of royal edicts; but Dillmann has shown that neither is
consistent with native Hebrew idiom. Dillmann himself regards it
as based on the idea of God expressed by the plural אלהים, as ‘the
living personal synthesis of a fulness of powers and forces’ (so
Driver); but that philosophic rendering of the concept of deity
appears to be foreign to the theology of the Old Testament.

* * * * *

=26.= בצלמנו כדמותנו] LXX κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν.
_Mechilta_ (see above, page 14), gives as LXX’s reading
בצלם ובדמות.――On the בְּ ‘of a model,’ compare Exodus 25⁴⁰;
Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ III. 8.――צלם] Assyrian _ṣalmu_,
the technical expression for the statue of a god (_Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 476³); Aramaic and
Syrian צַלְמָא, = ‘image’; the root is not _ẓalima_, ‘be dark,’
but possibly _ṣalama_, ‘cut off’ (Nöldeke, _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 185 f.). The idea of
‘pattern’ or ‘model’ is confined to the Priestly-Code passages
cited above; it stands intermediate between the concrete sense
just noted (an artificial material reproduction: 1 Samuel 6⁵
etc.) and another still more abstract, viz. ‘an unreal
semblance’ (Psalms 39⁷ 73²⁰).――דְּמוּת is the abstract noun
_resemblance_; but also used concretely (2 Chronicles 4³,
like Syrian (‡ Syriac word); Aramaic _dumyat_ = ‘effigy.’ The
ו is radical (form דִּמְוַת, compare Aramaic); hence the ending וּת
is no proof of Aramaic influence (Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur
Geschichte Israels_⁵ 388); see Driver _The Journal of Philology_
xi. 216.――ובכל־הארץ] Insert חַיַּת with Peshiṭtå (_v.s._). Other
versions agree with Massoretic Text.

* * * * *

The most natural and most widely accepted explanation is that God is here represented as taking counsel with divine beings other than Himself, viz. the angels or host of heaven: compare 3²² 11⁷, Isaiah 6⁸, 1 Kings 22¹⁹⁻²² (so Philo, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, Holzinger, Gunkel, Bennett, al.). Dillmann objects to this interpretation, _first_, that it ascribes to angels some share in the creation of man, which is contrary to scriptural doctrine;¹ and, _second_, that the very existence of angels is nowhere alluded to by Priestly-Code at all. There is force in these considerations; and probably the ultimate explanation has to be sought in a pre-Israelite stage of the tradition (such as is represented by the Babylonian account: see below, page 46), where a polytheistic view of man’s origin found expression. This would naturally be replaced in a Hebrew recension by the idea of a heavenly council of angels, as in 1 Kings 22, Job 1, 38⁷, Daniel 4¹⁴ 7¹⁰ etc. That Priestly-Code retained the idea in spite of his silence as to the existence of angels is due to the fact that it was decidedly less anthropomorphic than the statement that man was made in the image of the one incomparable Deity.――_in our image, according to our likeness_] The general idea of likeness between God and man frequently occurs in classical literature, and sometimes the very term of this verse (εἰκών, _ad imaginem_) is employed. To speak of it, therefore, as “the distinctive feature of the Bible doctrine concerning man” is an exaggeration; although it is true that such expressions on the plane of heathenism import much less than in the religion of Israel (Dillmann). The idea in this precise form is in the Old Testament peculiar to Priestly-Code (5¹ᐧ ³ 9⁶); the conception, but not the expression, appears in Psalms 8⁶: later biblical examples are Sirach 17³ ᶠᶠᐧ, Wisdom 2²³ (where the ‘image’ is equivalent to immortality), 1 Corinthians 11⁷, Colossians 3¹⁰, Ephesians 4²⁴, James 3⁹.

¹ Compare Calvin: “Minimam vero tam præclari operis partem
Angelis adscribere abominandum sacrilegium est.”

The origin of the conception is probably to be found in the
Babylonian mythology. Before proceeding to the creation of
Ea-bani, Aruru forms a mental image (_zikru_: see Jensen
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 401 f.) of the God Anu
(_ib._ 120, l. 33); and similarly, in the Descent of Ištar, Ea
forms a _zikru_ in his wise heart before creating Aṣūšunamir
(_ib._ 86. l. 11). In both cases the reference is obviously
to the bodily form of the created being. See, further, _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³ 506; _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 167.

The patristic and other theological developments of the doctrine
lie beyond the scope of this commentary;¹ and it is sufficient
to observe with regard to them――(1) that the ‘image’ is not
something peculiar to man’s original state, and lost by the
Fall; because Priestly-Code, who alone uses the expression,
knows nothing of a Fall, and in 9⁶ employs the term, without
any restriction, of post-diluvian mankind. (2) The distinction
between εἰκών (_imago_) and ὁμοίωσις (_similitudo_)――the former
referring to the essence of human nature and the latter to
its accidents or its endowments by grace――has an apparent
justification in LXX, which inserts καί between the two phrases
(see below), and _never mentions the ‘likeness’ after_ 1²⁶; so
that it was possible to regard the latter as something belonging
to the divine idea of man, but not actually conferred at his
creation. The Hebrew affords no basis for such speculations:
compare 5¹ᐧ ³ 9⁶.――(3) The view that the divine image consists
in dominion over the creatures (Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom,
Socinians, etc.) is still defended by Holzinger; but it cannot
be held without an almost inconceivable weakening of the figure,
and is inconsistent with the sequel, where the rule over the
creatures is, by a separate benediction, conferred on man,
already made in the image of God. The truth is that the image
marks the distinction between man and the animals, and so
qualifies him for dominion: the latter is the consequence, not
the essence, of the divine image (compare Psalms 8⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, Sirach
17²⁻⁴)――(4) Does the image refer primarily to the spiritual
nature or to the bodily form (upright attitude, etc.) of man?
The idea of a corporeal resemblance seems free from objection
on the level of Old Testament theology; and it is certainly
strongly suggested by a comparison of 5³ with 5¹. God is
expressly said to have a ‘form’ which can be seen (תְּמוּנָה,
Numbers 12⁸, Psalms 17¹⁵); the Old Testament writers constantly
attribute to Him bodily parts; and that they ever advanced to
the conception of God as formless spirit would be difficult to
prove. On the other hand, it may well be questioned if the idea
of a spiritual _image_ was within the compass of Hebrew thought.
Dillmann, while holding that the central idea is man’s spiritual
nature, admits a reference to the bodily form in so far as it is
the expression and organ of mind, and inseparable from spiritual
qualities.² It might be truer to say that it denotes primarily
the bodily form, but includes those spiritual attributes of
which the former is the natural and self-evident symbol.³――Note
the striking parallel in Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ i. 76 ff.

¹ A good summary is given by Zapletal, _Alttestamentliches_,
1‒15.

² So Augustine, _On Genesis against the Manichaeans_ 1. 17:
“Ita intelligitur per animum maxime, attestante etiam erecta
corporis forma, homo factus ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei.”

³ Compare Engert, _Die Weltschöpfung_, 33.

_Man_ (אָדָם) is here generic (the human race), not the proper name of an individual, as 5³. Although the great majority of commentaries take it for granted that a single pair is contemplated, there is nothing in the narrative to bear out that view; and the analogy of the marine and land animals is against it on the whole (Tuch and Bennett).――_fish of the sea, etc._] The enumeration coincides with the classification of animals already given, except that _the earth_ occurs where we should expect _wild beast of the earth_. חַיַּת should undoubtedly be restored to the text on the authority of Peshiṭtå.――=27.= _in his image, in the image of God, etc._] The repetition imparts a rhythmic movement to the language, which may be a faint echo of an old hymn on the glory of man, like Psalms 8 (Gunkel).――_male and female_] The persistent idea that man as first created was bi-sexual and the sexes separated afterwards (mentioned by Rashi as a piece of Haggada, and recently revived by Schwally, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, ix. 172 ff.), is far from the thought of the passage.――=28.= A benediction is here again the source of fertility, but this time also of dominion: Gunkel regards this as another fragment of a hymn.

* * * * *

=27.= בצלמו] LXX omitted. The curious paraphrase of Symmachus
appears to reflect the Ebionite tendency of that translator: ἐν
εἰκόνι διαφόρῳ ὄρθιον ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτόν (Geiger, _Jüdische
Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben_, i. 40 f.). See, however,
Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, 3 f., who calls attention
to the ὄρθιον in LXX of 1 Samuel 28¹⁴, and considers this word
the source of the idea that the upright form of man is part of
the divine image. But LXX in 1 Samuel probably misread זקן as
זקף.――אֹתוֹ] _constructio ad formam_: אֹתָם _constructio ad sensum_,
אדם being collective: see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 132 _g._――זכר ונקבה]
The phrase confined to Priestly-Code except Deuteronomy 4¹⁶; נ׳
alone in Jeremiah 31²¹ (a gloss?). Although the application
to a single pair of individuals predominates in the Law, the
collective sense is established by Genesis 7¹⁶, and is to be
assumed in some other cases (Numbers 5³ etc.). On its etymology
see Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et
Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_, _s.v._, and (for a different view)
Schwally, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,
xi. 181 f.――=28.= ויאמר להם] LXX λέγων; perhaps original.――וכבשֻׁהָ]
The only instance of a verbal suffix in this chapter: a strong
preference for expression of accusative by את with suffix
is characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code (Wellhausen
_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 389).――הרמשת] participle
with article = relative clause: see Davidson § 99, _R._ 1. The
previous noun is defined by כל, as in verse ²¹ (_The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ inserts the article).――After שמים
Peshiṭtå read ובבהמה (so Ball). LXX has for the end of the verse:
καὶ πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντων [τῶν ἑρπετῶν]
τῶν ἑρπόντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

* * * * *

=29‒31.= The record of creation closes with another (tenth) divine utterance, which regulates in broad and general terms the relation of men and animals to the vegetable world. The plants are destined for food to man and beast. The passage is not wholly intelligible apart from 9² ᶠᶠᐧ, from which we see that its point is the restriction on the use of animal food, particularly on the part of man. In other words, the first stage of the world’s history――that state of things which the Creator pronounced very good――is a state of peace and harmony in the animal world. This is Priestly-Code’s substitute for the garden of Eden.

A distinction is made between the food of man and that of animals: to the former (a) seeding plants (probably because the seed is important in cultivation, and in cereals is the part eaten), and (b) fruit-bearing trees; to the latter _all the greenness of herbage_, _i.e._ the succulent leafy parts. The statement is not exhaustive: no provision is made for fishes, nor is there any mention of the use of such victuals as milk, honey, etc. Observe the difference from chapters 2. 3, where man is made to live on fruit alone, and only as part of the curse has herbs (עשב) assigned to him.――=31.= The account closes with the divine verdict of approval, which here covers a survey of all that has been made, and rises to the superlative ‘very good.’

Verses ²⁹ ᶠᐧ differ significantly in their phraseology from
the preceding sections: thus זֹרֵעַ instead of מַזְרִיעַ (¹¹ᐧ ¹²);
העץ אשר בו פרי עץ זרע זרע instead of the far more elegant עץ עשה פרי אשר זרעו בו;
the classification into beasts, birds, and reptiles (contrast
²⁴ᐧ ²⁵); נפש חיה of the inner principle of life instead of
the living being as in ²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁴; ירק עשב instead of דשא. These
linguistic differences are sufficient to prove literary
discontinuity of some kind. They have been pointed out by
Kraetschmar (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 103 f.),
who adds the doubtful material argument that the prohibition
of animal food to man nullifies the dominion promised to him in
verses ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸. But his inference (partly endorsed by Holzinger)
that the verses are a later addition to Priestly-Code does
not commend itself; they are vitally connected with 9² ᶠᶠᐧ, and
must have formed part of the theory of the Priestly writer. The
facts point rather to a distinction in the sources with which
Priestly-Code worked,――perhaps (as Gunkel thinks) the enrichment
of the creation-story by the independent and widespread myth of
the Golden Age when animals lived peaceably with one another
and with men. The motives of this belief lie deep in the human
heart――horror of bloodshed, sympathy with the lower animals, the
longing for harmony in the world, and the conviction that on the
whole the course of things has been from good to worse――all have
contributed their share, and no scientific teaching can rob the
idea of its poetic and ethical value.

* * * * *

=29.= נתתי] = ‘I give’; Davidson § 40 _b_; Driver _A Treatise
on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 13.――זרע (over Athnach)]
wrongly omitted by LXX.――אכלה] found only in Priestly-Code and
Ezekiel, and always preceded by לְ. It is strictly feminine
infinitive, and perhaps always retains verbal force (see Driver
_The Journal of Philology_ xi. 217). The ordinary cognate
words for food are אֹכֶל and מַֽאֲכָל.――=30.= ולכל וגו׳ The construction
is obscure. The natural interpretation is that ³⁰ expresses
a contrast to ²⁹――the one specifying the food of _man_, the
other that of _animals_. To bring out this sense clearly it is
necessary (with Ewald al.) to insert נתתי before את־כל־ירק. The text
requires us to treat לכם יהיה לאכלה in ²⁹ as a parenthesis (Dillmann)
and את־כל־ירק as still under the regimen of the distant נתתי.――רוֹמֵשׂ]
LXX ἑρπετῷ τῷ ἕρποντι――assimilating.――נֶפֶשׁ] here used in its
primary sense of the _soul_ or animating principle (see later on
2⁷), with a marked difference from verses ²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ ²⁴.――ירק עשׂב] so
9³, = י׳ דֶּשֶׁא Psalms 37². יֶרֶק (verdure) alone may include the foliage
of trees (Exodus 10¹⁵); י׳ הַשָּׂדֶה = ‘grass’ (Numbers 22⁴). The
word is rare (6 times); a still rarer form יָרָק may sometimes be
confounded with it (Isaiah 37²⁷ = 2 Kings 17²⁶?).――=31.= יום הששי]
The article with the number appears here for the first time
in the chapter. On the construction, see Driver _A Treatise on
the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 209 (1), where it is treated
as the beginning of a usage prevalent in post-biblical Hebrew,
which often in a definite expression uses the article with the
adjective alone (כנסת הגדולה, etc.). Compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126
_w_ (with footnote); Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 465;
Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xi. 229 f.

* * * * *

=II. 1‒3. The rest of God.=――The section contains but one idea, expressed with unusual solemnity and copiousness of language,――the institution of the Sabbath. It supplies an answer to the question, Why is no work done on the last day of the week? (Gunkel). The answer lies in the fact that God Himself rested on that day from the work of creation, and bestowed on it a special blessing and sanctity.――The writer’s idea of the Sabbath and its sanctity is almost too realistic for the modern mind to grasp: it is not an institution which exists or ceases with its observance by man; the divine rest is a fact as much as the divine working, and so the sanctity of the day is a fact whether man secures the benefit or not. There is little trace of the idea that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath; it is an ordinance of the kosmos like any other part of the creative operations, and is for the good of man in precisely the same sense as the whole creation is subservient to his welfare.

=1.= _And all their host_] The ‘host of heaven’ (צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם) is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, and denotes sometimes the heavenly bodies, especially as objects of worship (Deuteronomy 4¹⁹ etc.), sometimes the angels considered as an organised army (1 Kings 22¹⁹ etc.). The expression ‘host of the earth’ nowhere occurs; and it is a question whether the plural suffix here is not to be explained as a _denominatio a potiori_ (Holzinger), or as a species of attraction (Driver). If it has any special meaning as applied to the earth, it would be equivalent to what is elsewhere called מְלֹא הארץ (Isaiah 6³ 34¹, Deuteronomy 33¹⁶ etc.)――the _contents_ of the earth, and is most naturally limited to those things whose creation has just been described.¹ In any case the verse yields little support to the view of Smend and Wellhausen, that in the name ‘Yahwe of Hosts’ the word denotes the complex of cosmical forces (Smend, _Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte_ 201 ff.), or the demons in which these forces were personified (Wellhausen, _Die kleinen Propheten_ 77).――=2.= _And God finished, etc._] The duplication of verse ¹ is harsh, and strongly suggests a composition of sources.――_on the seventh day_] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå read _sixth day_ (so also _Jubilees_, ii. 16, and Jerome, _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_), which is accepted as the original text by many commentaries (Ilgen, Olshausen, Budde, al.).² But _sixth_ is so much the easier reading that one must hesitate to give it the preference. To take the verb as pluperfect (Calvin al.) is grammatically impossible. On Wellhausen’s explanation, see above, page 9 f. The only remaining course is to give a purely negative sense to the verb _finish_: _i.e._ ‘desisted from,’ ‘did not continue’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Driver, al.). The last view may be accepted, in spite of the absence of convincing parallels.――_and he rested_] The idea of שָׁבַת is essentially negative: cessation of work, not relaxation (Driver): see below. Even so, the expression is strongly anthropomorphic, and warns us against exaggerating Priestly-Code’s aversion to such representations.³――=3.= _blessed ... sanctified_] The day is blessed and sacred in itself and from the beginning; to say that the remark is made in view of the future institution of the Sabbath (Driver), does not quite bring out the sense. Both verbs contain the idea of selection and distinction (compare Sirach 36 [33] ⁷⁻⁹), but they are not synonymous (Gunkel). A blessing is the effective utterance of a good wish; applied to things, it means their endowment with permanently beneficial qualities (Genesis 27²⁷, Exodus 23²⁵, Deuteronomy 28¹²). This is the case here: the Sabbath is a constant source of well-being to the man who recognises its true nature and purpose. To _sanctify_ is to set apart from common things to holy uses, or to put in a special relation to God.――_which God creatively made_] see the footnote.――Although no closing formula for the seventh day is given, it is contrary to the intention of the passage to think that the rest of God means His work of providence as distinct from creation: it is plainly a rest of one day that is thought of. It is, of course, a still greater absurdity to suppose an interval of twenty-four hours between the two modes of divine activity. The author did not think in our dogmatic categories at all.

¹ Compare Nehemiah 9⁶ “the heavens, the heavens of the heavens,
and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the
seas and all that is in them.”

² Expressly mentioned as LXX’s reading in _Mechilta_: see
above, page 14, and Geiger, _l.c._ 439.

³ In another passage of Priestly-Code, Exodus 31¹⁷, the
anthropomorphism is greatly intensified: “God rested and
refreshed Himself” (literally ‘took breath’).――See Jastrow
(_American Journal of Theology_ ii. 343 ff.), who thinks
that God’s ‘resting’ meant originally “His purification
after His conquest of the forces hostile to the order of
the world,” and was a survival of the mythological idea of
the appeasement of Marduk’s anger against Ti’āmat. The verb
there used is _nâḫu_, the equivalent of Hebrew נוח, used in
Exodus 20¹¹.

The origin of the Hebrew Sabbath, and its relation to Babylonian
usages, raise questions too intricate to be fully discussed here
(see Lotz, _Quaestiones de historia Sabbati_ [1883]; Jastrow,
_American Journal of Theology_ ii. [1898], 312 ff.; _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 592 ff.; Driver _A
Dictionary of the Bible_, _s.v._, and _The Book of Genesis with
Introduction and Notes_ 34; Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten
Testaments_ § 88, 2). The main facts, however, are these: (1)
The name _šab[p]attu_ occurs some five or six times in cuneiform
records; but of these only two are of material importance
for the Sabbath problem, (a) In a syllabary (II R. 32, 16 a, b)
_šabattu_ is equated with _ûm nûḫ libbi_, which has been
conclusively shown to mean ‘day of the appeasement of the heart
(of the deity),’――in the first instance, therefore, a day of
propitiation or atonement (Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_,
iv. 274 ff.; Jastrow _l.c._ 316 f.). (b) In a tablet discovered
by Pinches in 1904, the name _šapattu_ is applied to the
fifteenth day of the month (as full-moon-day?) (Pinches
_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xxvi.
51 ff.; Zimmern, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen
Gesellschaft_, lviii. 199 ff., 458 ff.). (2) The only trace of a
Babylonian _institution_ at all resembling the Hebrew Sabbath is
the fact that in certain months of the year (Elul, Marchešvan,
but possibly the rest as well) the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th days,
and also the 19th (probably as the 7 × 7th from the beginning of
the previous month), had the character of _dies nefasti_ (‘lucky
day, unlucky day’), on which certain actions had to be avoided
by important personages (king, priest, physician) (IV R. 32 f.,
33). Now, no evidence has ever been produced that these _dies
nefasti_ bore the name _šabattu_; and the likelihood that this
was the case is distinctly lessened by the Pinches fragment,
where the name is applied to the 15th day, but not to the 7th,
although it also is mentioned on the tablet. The question,
therefore, has assumed a new aspect; and Meinhold (_Sabbat und
Woche im Alten Testament_ [1905], and more recently [1909],
_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxix. 81
ff.), developing a hint of Zimmern, has constructed an ingenious
hypothesis on the assumption that in Babylonian _šabattu_
denotes the day of the full moon. He points to the close
association of new-moon and Sabbath in nearly all the pre-exilic
references (Amos 8⁵, Hosea 2¹³, Isaiah 1¹³, 2 Kings 4²² ᶠᐧ);
and concludes that in early Israel, as in Babylon, the Sabbath
was the full-moon festival and nothing else. The institution
of the weekly Sabbath he traces to a desire to compensate for
the loss of the old lunar festivals, when these were abrogated
by the Deuteronomic reformation. This innovation he attributes
to Ezekiel; but steps towards it are found in the introduction
of a weekly day of rest during harvest only (on the ground of
Deuteronomy 16⁹; compare Exodus 34²¹), and in the establishment
of the sabbatical year (Leviticus 25), which he considers to
be older than the weekly Sabbath. The theory involves great
improbabilities, and its net result seems to be to leave the
actual Jewish Sabbath as we know it without any point of contact
in Babylonian institutions. It is hard to suppose that there is
no historical connexion between the Hebrew Sabbath and the _dies
nefasti_ of the Babylonian calendar; and if such a connexion
exists, the chief difficulties remain where they have long been
felt to lie, viz., (a) in the substitution of a weekly cycle
running continuously through the calendar for a division of
each month into seven-day periods, probably regulated by the
phases of the moon; and (b) in the transformation of a day of
superstitious restrictions into a day of joy and rest. Of these
changes, it must be confessed, no convincing explanation has
yet been found. The established sanctity of the number seven,
and the decay or suppression of the lunar feasts, might be
contributory causes; but when the change took place, and whether
it was directly due to Babylonian influence, or was a parallel
development from a lunar observance more primitive than either,
cannot at present be determined. See Hehn, _Siebenzahl und
Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im Alten Testament_, 91 ff.,
especially 114 ff.; compare Gordon, _The Early Traditions of
Genesis_, 216 ff.

* * * * *

=1.= צבא] Literally ‘host’ or ‘army’; then ‘period of service’
(chiefly military), LXX κόσμος and Vulgate _ornatus_ look like
a confusion with צְבִי. Used of the host of heaven, Deuteronomy
4¹⁹ 17³, Isaiah 24²¹ 40²⁶, where Vulgate has in the first case
_astra_, in the others _militia_; LXX κόσμος in all.――=2.= ויכל]
For the alleged negative sense of Piel (see above), examine
Numbers 17²⁵, or (with מן) 1 Samuel 10¹³, Exodus 34³³ etc.――מלאכה]
the word “used regularly of the work or business forbidden on
the Sabbath (Exodus 20⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ 35², Jeremiah 17²²ᐧ ²⁴ al.)” (Driver);
or on holy convocations (Exodus 12¹⁶, Leviticus 16²⁹ 23²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ,
Numbers 29⁷). It has the prevailing sense of regular occupation
or business, as Genesis 39¹¹, Jonah 1⁸.――השביעי¹] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, _The Book of
Jubilees._, _Bereshith Rabba_ הששי, given as LXX’s reading
in _Mechilta_ (compare page 14 above).――וישבת] The omission of
continued subject (אלהים) might strengthen Wellhausen’s contention
that the clause is a gloss (see page 10 above): it occurs
nowhere else in the passage except _possibly_ 1⁷. The verb
שבת (possibly connected with Aramaic _sabata_ = ‘cut off,’
or Assyrian _šabātu_ = ‘cease,’ ‘be completed’: but see _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 593 f.) appears in
Old Testament in three quite distinct senses: (a) ‘cease to
be,’ ‘come to an end’; (b) ‘desist’ (from work, etc.); (c) ‘keep
Sabbath’ (denominative). Of the last there are four undoubted
cases, all very late: Leviticus 25² 23³² 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ, 2 Chronicles
36²¹. But there are five others where this meaning is at least
possible: Genesis 2²ᐧ ³, Exodus 16³⁰ 23¹² 34²¹ 31¹⁷; and of
these Exodus 23¹² 34²¹ are pre-exilic. Apart from these doubtful
passages, the sense ‘desist’ (b) is found only in Hosea 7⁴, Job
32¹ (Qal); Exodus 5⁵, Joshua 22²⁵, Ezekiel 16⁴¹ 34¹⁰ (Hiphil);
of which Hosea 7⁴ (a corrupt context) and Exodus 5⁵, alone are
_possibly_ pre-exilic. In all other occurrences (about 46 in
all; 9 Qal, 4 Niphal, 33 Hiphil) the sense (a) ‘come to an end’
obtains; and this usage prevails in all stages of the literature
from Amos to Daniel; the pre-exilic examples being Genesis 8²²,
Joshua 5¹²(?) (Qal); Isaiah 17³ (Niphal); Amos 8⁴, Hosea 1⁴ 2¹³,
Isaiah 16¹⁰(?) 30¹¹, Deuteronomy 32²⁶, 2 Kings 23⁵ᐧ ¹¹, Jeremiah
7³⁴ 16⁹ 36²⁹ (Hiphil). These statistics seem decisive against
Hehn’s view (_l.c._ 93 ff.) that שָׁבַת is originally a denominative
from שַׁבָּת. If all the uses are to be traced to a single
root-idea, there can be no doubt that (b) is primary. But
while a dependence of (a) on (b) is intelligible (compare the
analogous case of חָדַל), ‘desist’ from work, and ‘come to an end’
are after all very different ideas; and, looking to the immense
preponderance of the latter sense (a), especially in the early
literature, it is worth considering whether the old Hebrew verb
did not mean simply ‘come to an end,’ and whether the sense
‘desist’ was not imported into it under the influence of the
denominative use (c) of which Exodus 23¹² 34²¹ might be early
examples. [A somewhat similar view is now expressed by Meinhold
(_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1909, 100
f.), except that he ignores the distinction between ‘desist’ and
‘come to an end,’ which seems to me important.]――=3.= ברא ... לעשות]
The awkward construction is perhaps adopted because ברא could not
directly govern the substantive מלאכה. LXX has ἤρξατο ... ποιῆσαι.

* * * * *

=4a.= _These are the generations, etc._] The best sense that can be given to the expression is to refer the pronoun to what precedes, and render the noun by ‘origin’: ‘This is the origin of,’ etc. But it is doubtful if תולדות can bear any such meaning, and altogether the half-verse is in the last degree perplexing. It is in all probability a redactional insertion.

The formula (and indeed the whole phraseology) is characteristic
of Priestly-Code; and in that document it invariably stands as
introduction to the section following. But in this case the next
section (2⁴ᵇ‒4²⁶) belongs to Yahwist; and if we pass over the
Yahwist passages to the next portion of Priestly-Code (chapter
5), the formula would collide with 5¹, which is evidently the
proper heading to what follows. Unless, therefore, we adopt the
improbable hypothesis of Strack, that a part of Priestly-Code’s
narrative has been dropped, the attempt to treat 2⁴ᵃ in its
present position as a superscription must be abandoned. On this
ground most critics have embraced a view propounded by Ilgen,
that the clause stood originally before 1¹, as the heading
of Priestly-Code’s account of the creation.¹ But this theory
also is open to serious objection. It involves a meaning of
תולדות which is contrary both to its etymology and the usage of
Priestly-Code (see footnote). Whatever latitude of meaning be
assigned to the word, it is the fact that in this formula it
is always followed by genitive of the progenitor, never of the
progeny: hence by analogy the phrase must describe that which
is generated by the heavens and the earth, not the process by
which they themselves are generated (so Lagarde, _Orientalia_
ii. 38 ff., and Holzinger). And even if that difficulty could
be overcome (see Lagarde), generation is a most unsuitable
description of the process of creation _as conceived by
Priestly-Code_. In short, neither as superscription nor as
subscription can the sentence be accounted for as an integral
part of the Priestly Code. There seems no way out of the
difficulty but to assume with Holzinger that the formula in this
place owes its origin to a mechanical imitation of the manner of
Priestly-Code by a later hand. The insertion would be suggested
by the observation that the formula divides the book of Genesis
into definite sections; while the advantage of beginning a
new section at this point would naturally occur to an editor
who felt the need of sharply separating the two accounts
of the creation, and regarded the second as in some way the
continuation of the first. If that be so, he probably took
ת׳ in the sense of ‘history’ and referred אֵלֶּה to what follows.
The analogy of 5¹, Numbers 3¹ would suffice to justify the use
of the formula before the ביום of ⁴ᵇ.――It has been thought that
LXX has preserved the original form of the text: viz. זה ספר ת׳ וגו׳
(compare 5¹); the redactor having, “before inserting a section
from the other document, accidentally copied in the opening
words of 5¹, which were afterwards adapted to their present
position” (Bennett). That is improbable. It is more likely
that LXX deliberately altered the text to correspond with 5¹.
See Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt; sive Veterum
Interpretum Græcorum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta_, _ad
loc._; Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, 4.

* * * * *

=4a.= תולדות] only in plural constructs or with suffix; and
confined to Priestly-Code, Chronicles and Ruth 4¹⁸. Formed
from Hiphil of ילד, it means properly ‘begettings’; not, however,
as noun of action, but concretely (= ‘progeny’); and this is
certainly the prevalent sense. The phrase א׳ ת׳ (only Priestly-Code
[all in Genesis except Numbers 3¹], 1 Chronicles 1²⁹, Ruth 4¹⁸)
means primarily “These are the descendants”; but since a _list_
of descendants is a genealogy, it is practically the same thing
if we render, “This is the genealogical register.” In the great
majority of instances (Genesis [5¹] 10¹ 11¹⁰ 11²⁷ 25¹² 36¹ᐧ ⁹,
1 Chronicles 1²⁹, Ruth 4¹⁸) this sense is entirely suitable;
the addition of a few historical notices is not inconsistent
with the idea of a genealogy, nor is the general character of
these sections affected by it. There are just three cases where
this meaning is inapplicable: Genesis 6⁹ 25¹⁹ 37². But it is
noteworthy that, except in the last case, at least a fragment
of a genealogy follows; and it is fair to inquire whether 37²
may not have been originally followed by a genealogy (such as
35²²ᵇ⁻²⁶ or 46⁸⁻²⁷ [see Hupfeld, _Die Quellen der Genesis und
die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_, 102‒109, 213‒216]) which was
afterwards displaced in the course of redaction (see page 423,
below). With that assumption we could explain every occurrence
of the formula without having recourse to the unnatural view
that the word may mean a “family history” (Gesenius-Buhl
_s.v._), or “an account of a man and his descendants”
(Brown-Driver-Briggs). The natural hypothesis would then be
that a series of תולדות formed one of the sources employed by
Priestly-Code in compiling his work: the introduction of this
genealogical document is preserved in 5¹ (so Holzinger); the
recurrent formula represents successive sections of it, and 2⁴ᵃ
is a redactional imitation. When it came to be amalgamated with
the narrative material, some dislocations took place: hence the
curious anomaly that a man’s history sometimes appears under his
own _Tôlĕdôth_, sometimes under those of his father; and it is
difficult otherwise to account for the omission of the formula
before 12¹ or for its insertion in 36⁹. On the whole, this
theory seems to explain the facts better than the ordinary
view that the formula was devised by Priestly-Code to mark the
divisions of the principal work.――ב{ה}בראם] ‘in their creation’
or ‘when they were created.’ If the _literal minuscule_ has
critical significance (Tuch, Dillmann) the primary reading was
infinitive Qal (בְּבָרְאָם); and this requires to be supplemented by
אלהים as subject. It is in this form that Dillmann thinks the
clause originally stood at the beginning of Genesis. (see on 1¹).
But the omission of אלהים and the insertion of the ה _minuscule_
are no necessary consequences of the transposition of the
sentence; and the small ה may be merely an error in the
archetypal MS, which has been mechanically repeated in all
copies.

¹ On Dillmann’s modification of this theory, see above on 1¹.

* * * * *

_Babylonian and other Cosmogonies._

1. The outlines of Babylonian cosmogony have long been known
from two brief notices in Greek writers: (1) an extract from
Berossus (3rd century B.C.) made by Alexander Polyhistor, and
preserved by Syncellus from the lost Chronicle of Eusebius (lib.
i.); and (2) a passage from the Neo-Platonic writer Damascius
(6th century A.D.). From these it was apparent that the biblical
account of creation is in its main conceptions Babylonian.
The interest of the fragments has been partly enhanced, but
partly superseded, since the discovery of the closely parallel
‘Chaldæan Genesis,’ unearthed from the debris of Asshurbanipal’s
library at Nineveh by George Smith in 1873. It is therefore
unnecessary to examine them in detail; but since the originals
are not very accessible to English readers, they are here
reprinted in full (with emendations after _Die Keilinschriften
und das Alte Testament_³, 488 ff.):

(1) Berossus: Γενέσθαι φησὶ χρόνον ἐν ᾧ τὸ πᾶν σκότος καὶ ὕδωρ
εἶναι, καὶ ἐν τούτοις ζῶα τερατώδη, καὶ ἰδιοφυεῖς [emphatic
by Richt., codex εἰδιφυεῖς] τὰς ἰδέας ἔχοντα ζωογονεῖσθαι·
ἀνθρώπους γὰρ διπτέρους γεννηθῆναι, ἐνίους δὲ καὶ τετραπτέρους
καὶ διπροσώπους· καὶ σῶμα μὲν ἔχοντας ἕν, κεφαλὰς δὲ δύο,
ἀνδρείαν τε καὶ γυναικείαν, καὶ αἰδοῖα δὲ [corrected by von
Gutschmid, codex τε], δισσὰ, ἄῤῥεν καὶ θῆλυ· καὶ ἑτέρους
ἀνθρώπους τοὺς μὲν αἰγῶν σκέλη καὶ κέρατα ἔχοντας, τοὺς δὲ ἵππου
πόδας [corrected by von Gutschmid, codex ἱππόποδας], τοὺς δὲ
τὰ ὀπίσω μὲν μέρη ἵππων, τὰ δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἀνθρώπων, οὓς [ὡς? von
Gutschmid] ἱπποκενταύρους τὴν ἰδέαν εἶναι. Ζωογονηθῆναι δὲ καὶ
ταύρους ἀνθρώπων κεφαλὰς ἔχοντας καὶ κύνας τετρασωμάτους, οὐρὰς
ἰχθύος ἐκ τῶν ὄπισθεν μερῶν ἔχοντας, καὶ ἵππους κυνοκεφάλους καὶ
ἀνθρώπους, καὶ ἕτερα ζῶα κεφαλὰς μὲν καὶ σώματα ἵππων ἔχοντα,
οὐρὰς δὲ ἰχθύων· καὶ ἄλλα δὲ ζῶα παντοδαπῶν θηρίων μορφὰς ἔχοντα.
Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἰχθύας καὶ ἑρπετὰ καὶ ὄφεις καὶ ἄλλα ζῶα πλείονα
θαυμαστὰ καὶ παρηλλαγμένας [emphatic by von Gutschmid, codex
παρηλλαγμένα] τὰς ὄψεις ἀλλήλων ἔχοντα· ὧν καὶ τὰς εἰκόνας ἐν
τῷ τοῦ Βηλου ναῷ ἀνακεῖσθαι, ἄρχειν δὲ τούτων πάντων γυναῖκα ᾗ
ὄνομα Ὀμορκα [corrected by Scaliger, codex Ὁμορωκα] εἶναι· τοῦτο
δὲ Χαλδαϊστὶ μὲν Θαμτε [corrected by W. R. Smith, _Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie_, vi. 339, codex Θαλατθ], Ἑλληνιστὶ δὲ
μεθερμηνεύεται θάλασσα κατὰ δὲ ἰσόψηφον σελήνη. Οὕτως δὲ τῶν
ὅλων συνεστηκότων, ἐπανελθόντα Βηλον σχίσαι τὴν γυναῖκα μέσην,
καὶ τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ αὐτῆς ποιῆσαι γῆν, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο ἥμισυ οὐρανὸν,
καὶ τὰ ἐν [σὺν? von Gutschmid] αὐτῇ ζῶα ἀφανίσαι, ἀλληγορικῶς δέ
φησι τοῦτο πεφυσιολογῆσθαι· ὑγροῦ γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ παντὸς καὶ ζώων
ἐν αὐτῷ γεγεννημένων [A]¹ τοιῶνδε [emphatic by von Gutschmid,
codex τὸν δὲ] Βηλον, ὃν Δία μεθερμηνεύουσι, μέσον τεμόντα τὸ
σκότος χωρίσαι γῆν καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων, καὶ διατάξαι τὸν
κόσμον. Τὰ δὲ ζῶα οὐκ ἐνεγκόντα τὴν τοῦ φωτὸς δύναμιν φθαρῆναι,
ἰδόντα δὲ τὸν Βηλον χώραν ἔρημον καὶ ἀκαρποφόρον [emphatic by
Gunkel, codex καρποφόρον] κελεῦσαι ἑνὶ τῶν θεῶν τὴν κεφαλὴν
ἀφελόντι ἑαυτοῦ τῷ ἀποῤῥυέντι αἵματι φυρᾶσαι τὴν γῆν καὶ
διαπλάσαι ἀνθρώπους καὶ θηρία τὰ δυνάμενα τὸν ἀέρα φέρειν.
Ἀποτελέσαι δὲ τὸν Βηλον καὶ ἄστρα καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ τοὺς
πέντε πλανήτας. Ταῦτά φησιν ὁ πολυΐστωρ Ἀλέξανδρος τὸν Βηρωσσὸν
ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ φάσκειν [B]¹ τοῦτον τὸν θεὸν ἀφελεῖν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
κεφαλὴν καὶ τὸ ῥυὲν αἷμα τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς φυρᾶσαι τῇ γῇ, καὶ
διαπλάσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· διὸ νοερούς τε εἶναι καὶ φρονήσεως
θείας μετέχειν.

¹ The sections commencing with [A] and [B] stand in the
reverse order in the text. The transposition is due to
von Gutschmid, and seems quite necessary to bring out any
connected meaning, though there may remain a suspicion
that the two accounts of the creation of man are variants,
and that the second is interpolated. Jeremias _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 134, plausibly
assigns the section from ἀλληγορικῶς to φθαρῆναι to another
recension (restoring [B] to its place in the text).

(2) Damascius: Τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων ἐοίκασι Βαβυλώνιοι μὲν τὴν μίαν
τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὴν σιγῇ παριέναι, δύο δὲ ποιεῖν Ταυθε καὶ Ἀπασων,
τὸν μὲν Ἀπασων ἄνδρα τῆς Ταυθε ποιοῦντες, ταύτην δὲ μητέρα θεῶν
ὀνομάζοντες, ἐξ ὧν μονογενῆ παῖδα γεννηθῆναι τὸν Μωυμιν, αὐτὸν
οἶμαι τὸν νοητὸν κόσμον ἐκ τῶν δυοῖν ἀρχῶν παραγόμενον. Ἐκ δὲ
τῶν αὐτῶν ἄλλην γενεὰν προελθεῖν, Λαχην [codex Δαχην] καὶ Λαχον
[codex Δαχον]. Εἶτα αὖ τρίτην ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν, Κισσαρη καὶ Ἀσσωρον,
ἐξ ὧν γενέσθαι τρεῖς, Ἀνον καὶ Ἰλλινον καὶ Ἀον· τοῦ δὲ Ἀου καὶ
Δαυκης υἱὸν γενέσθαι τὸν Βηλον, ὃν δημιουργὸν εἶναί φασιν.[B]¹

¹ The Greek text of Berossus will be found in Müller,
_Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ ii. 497 f.; that of
Damascius in _Damascii philosophi de primis principiis_
(edited by Kopp, 1826), cap. 125. For translations of both
fragments, see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
488 ff.; G. Smith, _Chaldean Genesis_ (edited by Sayce),
pages 34 ff., 43 f. (from Cory, _Ancient Fragments_); Gunkel
_Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 17 ff.; Nikel,
_Genesis und Keilschriftforschung_ 24 f., 28.

2. The only cuneiform document which admits of close and
continuous comparison with Genesis 1 is the great Creation Epos
just referred to. Since the publication, in 1876, of the first
fragments, many lacunæ have been filled up from subsequent
discoveries, and several duplicates have been brought to light;
and the series is seen to have consisted of seven Tablets,
entitled, from the opening phrase, _Enuma eliš_ (= ‘When
above’).¹ The actual tablets discovered are not of earlier
date than the 7th century B.C., but there are strong reasons
to believe that the originals of which these are copies are of
much greater antiquity, and may go back to 2000 B.C., while the
myth itself probably existed in writing in other forms centuries
before that. Moreover, they represent the theory of creation on
which the statements of Berossus and Damascius are based, and
they have every claim to be regarded as the authorised version
of the Babylonian cosmogony. It is here, therefore, if anywhere,
that we must look for traces of Babylonian influences on the
Hebrew conception of the origin of the world. The following
outline of the contents of the tablets is based on King’s
analysis of the epic into five originally distinct parts (_The
Seven Tablets of Creation_, page lxvii).

¹ The best collection and translation of the relevant texts in
English is given in L. W. King’s _Seven Tablets of Creation_,
volume i. (1902); with which should be compared Jensen
_Mythen und Epen_, in _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi.
1 (1900), and now (1909) Gressmann, _Altorientalische Texte
und Bilder zum Alten Testament_, i. 4 ff. See also Jensen
_Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_ (1890), 268‒301; Gunkel
_Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ (1894) 401‒420,
and the summaries in _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 492 ff.; Lukas, _Die Grundbegriffe in den
Kosmogonien der alten Völker_ (1893), 2 ff.; Jastrow _The
Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (1898) 410 ff.; Jeremias
_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 132 ff.;
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, article CREATION.

i. _The Theogony._――The first twenty-one lines of Tablet I.
contain a description of the primæval chaos and the evolution of
successive generations of deities:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not bear a name,
And the primæval Apsu,¹ who begat them,
And chaos, Ti’āmat,² the mother of them both,――
Their waters were mingled together,
* * * * *
Then were created the gods in the midst of (heaven), etc.

First Laḥmu and Laḥamu,³ then Ansar and Kisar,⁴ and lastly (as
we learn from Damascius, whose report is in accord with this
part of the tablet, and may safely be used to make up a slight
defect) the supreme triad of the Babylonian pantheon, Anu, Bel,
and Ea.⁵

¹ Damascius, Ἀπασων.

² Damascius Ταυθε, Berossus Θαμτε (emphatic, see above).

³ Damascius Λαχη and Λαχος (emphatic).

⁴ Ἀσσωρος and Κισσαρη.

⁵ Ἀνος, Ἰλλινος (In-lil = Bel), and, Ἀος.

ii. _The Subjugation of Apsu by Ea._――The powers of chaos, Apsu,
Tiamat, and a third being called Mummu (Damascius Μωυμις), take
counsel together to ‘destroy the way’ of the heavenly deities.
An illegible portion of Tablet I. must have told how Apsu and
Mummu were vanquished by Ea, leaving Tiamat still unsubdued.
In the latter part of the tablet the female monster is again
incited to rebellion by a god called Kingu, whom she chooses as
her consort, laying on his breast the ‘Tables of Destiny’ which
the heavenly gods seek to recover. She draws to her side many of
the old gods, and brings forth eleven kinds of monstrous beings
to aid her in the fight.

iii. _The conflict between Marduk and Tiamat._――Tablets II. and
III. are occupied with the consultations of the gods in view
of this new peril, resulting in the choice of Marduk as their
champion; and Tablet IV. gives a graphic description of the
conflict that ensues. On the approach of the sun-god, mounted on
his chariot and formidably armed, attended by a host of winds,
Tiamat’s helpers flee in terror, and she alone confronts the
angry deity. Marduk entangles her in his net, sends a hurricane
into her distended jaws, and finally despatches her by an arrow
shot into her body.

iv. _The account of creation_ commences near the end of Tablet
IV. After subduing the helpers of Tiamat and taking the Tables
of Destiny from Kingu, Marduk surveys the carcase, and ‘devised
a cunning plan’:

He split her up like a flat fish into two halves;
One half of her he stablished as a covering for the heaven.
He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman,
And bade them not to let her waters come forth.
He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions
(thereof),
And over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.¹
And the lord measured the structure of the Deep
And he founded E-šara, a mansion like unto it.
The mansion E-šara which he created as heaven,
He caused Anu, Bel, and Ea in their districts to inhabit.