Cosmogony (Hastings' Dictionary)

I. Two cosmogonies or narratives of creatiiin confront us in the ojicning chapters of the Bible. The first, contained m the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, is a part of the document P, belonging to the early nost-exilic period ; while the second, contained in Gn 2*"^', forms the intro- duction to the Jahwistic document (J), redacted in the pre-exilic period, and therefore earlier than the first. (A) The First Creation Narrative.

— The writer t of the opening chapter of the Book of Genesis (Gn l'-2**) set oefore himself the task of giving a comprehensive survey of the origins of IsraePs history. ' It was his purpose to show that the theocracy which became historically realized in Israel as hierocracy was the end and aim of the creation of the world' (Holzinger).

To his consciousness Israel and Israel's saceraotal institutions stand central to the great movement of history, and he consistently works out this grandiose conception to its ultimate origins. Ac- cordingly, he unfolds the narrative in successive gradations, the scope of which narrows from the • The decree is erroneously termed by some modem autho. ritics an edict of Julius Cu;sar.

t The work of this writer constitutes the fundamental docu- ment of the lander work, V, hence called by Holzinifer, I'itOj = QruruUchryft), by Wellhausen, Q. A clear and cojniirchensive statement of the specialities of language and stvlu of this docu- ment may be found lo Uolxlnger's Uexattuch, pp. i3&-3&4. universal to the particular as it passes from heaven and earth to Adam, from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, and, lastly, from Abraham to Israel and his descendants.

Beginning each sec- tion we find an entuueration of fCUddth or ' generations.' First we have the "Tfileddth of the universe (heaven and earth) of which God is the Creator, then of man (Adam), then of Noah, then of Abraham. We are here concerned only with tlie first of the series, which deals with the pre- human stages in the drama of the world. The following is a brief summary of the First Creation Story.

The week of seven days forms a calendar into which the dill'erent successive stages of the work of creation are divided. The creation of man forms the climax and conclusion of the work on the sixth day, while the close of the narrative describes the seventh or day of rest, when J" ceased from His creation- work. Firti day (Gn 11-). Light created amid the waste and void of the primal chaos. Division of day and night. Second day (vv.^.

Creation of the firmament, dividing the upper from Ihe lower waters. Third day (vv.y-l^). Dr>- land and seas formed. Vegetation. Fourth day (vv.i^l»). Heavenly bodies created. Fifth day (vv, 20-21). Waters swarm with living creatures — flying things, monsters of the deep, reptiles and birds created. Sixth day (w.2+51). Creation of land animals — cattle, rep- tiles, wild beasts. Man fashioned in divine image and placed as head and lord of creates! things. Seventh day (21-3).

Sabbath of divine rest. (B) The Second Creation Narrative is the Jahwistic account contained in Gn 2">"', and follows immediately upon the preceding. It belongs to an earlier document, composed during the national and pre-exilic period of Hebrew life, before the Jewish nation became merged in an ecclesiastical polity, and at a time when the traditions of patri- archal story, which clustered around certain sacred spots, were still vivid.

Religious conceptions were tlien sini|)le and concrete, and the representations of God were strongly anthropomorphic. The in- terests of the writer are national and human. Not a priestly system, but a people, is the centre of his universe. Moreover, his thought moves along the lines of prophetic rather than priestly ideas. Accordingly, the creation of man plays a much more important part in the Jahwistic cos- mogony.

We hear nothing of moon and stars to regulate festival sea-sons, but of plants and animals. Nor is man's position made so distinct from that of animated nature around him (cf. Wellhausen, Prolegg.' p. 32.'). It is exceedingly doubtful whether we have the Jahwistic cosmogony complete, and the abrupt introduction to v.» i) rv S:] suggests that some- thing between vv.

and " has been omitted by the redactor, and perhaps also between and , either because it repeated or because it was incon- sistent with the preceding creation narrative. The succession of circumstantial clauses in vv. and ' certainly presents an interesting parallel to Gn 1-. But what we actually ])ossess of the Jahwistic cosmogony in the biblical record is in striking contrast to the work of P. Vv."

and * in external form bear a certain resemblance to the ' New- Babylonian version of the creation story,' di.^- covered by Pinches and published in J HAS vol. xxiii. (1891) p. 39311'. ' The sacred hou.se of the gods had not been erected in the Holy Place, No reed had yet budded, no tree had been formed,' etc.

The dryness of the earth before the growth of plants, the mention of the ascending mist, the creation of man, and the descriiition of Paradise in which man wa-s placed, as well as the creation of woman, of which a special account is given in 2'"'-, stAnd in remarkable contrast to the precedin;,' post-exilic cosmogony. In language we speciallj 503 COSMOGONY COSMOGONY note tlie use of ns; (or .•^v) in place of «■;? in Gn 1.

(See Dillmann's conunentJary for a complete list of divergencies in style.) II. We shall now proceed to examine in greater detail the first creation account. The narrative in Gn I'-2" opens with a reference to a pre- existent dark chaos {tohu wabohu). ' In the he- ginning, when God created the heavens and the earth — now the earth was waste and void, and darkness was over the watery abyss (tikum), and the breath of God was brooding over the waters — then God said: Let there oe light.'

This rendering, which is adopted by Ewald, DUlmann, and Schrader (following Rashi), regards v.^ as a circumstantial or parenthetic clause. This yields the best construction as well as meaning, and is parallel to the opening of the Jahwistic creation account 2**'- '• ', and also of the Bab. creation tablet to be presently cited. All these are curiously similar in the form of the opening, which consists of a series of temporal clauses.

How long the pre-existing waste and emptiness of chaos existed, and how long the darkness pre- vailed over the primal waters tiefore the quicken- ing spirit or breath of God brooded over its surface, we do not know. The remarkable phrase in the first cosmogony, ' the spirit (or breath) of God was brooding over the waters,' is probably intended to indicate the ultimate origin of the generating in- fluences that operated during creation as grounded in the divine spiritual activity.

That the form, however, in which this conception is conveyed was suggested by ancient Semitic cosmogonies, is a fact w-hich we shall subsequently have occasi»n to confirm. The immediate cause of light, in the mind of the writer, is clearly indicated as the divine word which went forth as a Jiat, and it is this divine word regarded as an agent that ushers in each succeeding act in the divine drama of creation.

The creation of light in itself involves a distinction between light and darkness ; but the division be- tween light and darkness in v.* implies that this was a division, not in space but in time, aa the context immediately shows : ' and God called the light day, and the darkness he called night.' It was therefore through the creation of light that the first creation-day was constituted. What, then, constituted the night and what the daytime?

Was it the primal darkness of chaos that consti- tuted the night, to which day succeeded ? If so, we might compare the conception of the first day and of the succeeding ones to the ecclesiastical day of Judaism, which begins with the darkness after sunset and continues till the sunset which in- augurates the following day.

Some colour is given to this view by the specification of evening before the morning in the concluding formula in describing each stage of creation : ' and there was evening and there was morning. . ' But the difficulties which stand in the way of accepting this view have been clearly set forth in Dillmann's Commentary.

He emphasizes the fact that the darkness of chaos lay entirely outside the reckoning of day and night [properly, we might add, outside the actual work of divine creation here recorded]. Evening first arises after light has been created. In fact, the word from its very etymology ("erefi, derived from the root aiy, in Assyrian 'eribu, ' enter,' 'pass under ' * ) implies that 'day' had preceded.

Alorcover, the fact that we are reading a post-exilic narrative in which the months of the calendar were regulated by the Bab. system, which reckoned from Nisan (a name of Bab. origin), would lead us to the supposi- tion that the Bab. tradition would also affect the reckoning of the day in the creation account. Now, •n the testimony of Pliny {UN ii. 79, cited by Del.) Thus erib iamii in Ajerrian means sunset.* the Babylonians reckoned the day from snnrise to sunrise.

We may therefore infer that the crea- tion-day was also reckoned from sunrise to sunrise, according to the tradition of the Jewish civil day. Vv.'" portray the second day's creation-work, viz. the separation of the upper from the lower waters by the formation of a heavenly firmament (Heb. rdkia') which divides them. The Hebrew word V'PT properly signifies something beaten oj hammered out, fairly represented by LXX, Aq., Symm. arepiaim, Vulg. Jirmamcntum.

That the ancient Greeks conceived of this vault as consisting of burnished metal is shown by the epithets <rtSripcot (Od. XV. 329) and x^^^fo' (I^- xvii. 425 ; Pindar, Pyth. X. 42 ; Nem. vi. 5) occurring in their early literature. And these conceptions have their parallels in the lan^age of the OT. Numerous passages may be cited to prove that the Heb. Semite regarded the sky as a solid vault or arched dome.

In Job 37'* it is compared to a firm molten mirror, the hue of which in Ex 24'° is described aa resembling sapphire, while from Am 9', Job26"'- ", Pr 8"' ^ we gather the additional details that this solid compacted vault or arched dome was supported on the loftiest mountains as pillars (Job 26"). It was also provided with windows and gates (Gn 7" 28", 2 K V- '», Ps IS^). Above this solid rakia' flowed the upper or heavenly waters (v.')

, which descended in rain through these openings (Ps 104' 148*, 2 K 7"). DUlmann, from whose clear exposi- tion of these conceptions we have borrowed, com- pares also the lan^age of the Vedas and of the Avesta, where we likewise meet with this conception of an upper or heavenly sea. Similarly, the ancient Egyptians believed that the sun, god Ra daily traverses the celestial waters in his boat.

The Assyrians and Babylonians also had their con- ceptions of a deep which rolled over the firma- ment of heaven. These we shall Ulustrate in some measure from their creation-epic. Of. Sayce, Hib. Led. p. 374 ; Jensen, Cosmol. der Bab. p. 254. Vv.*"" portray the work of the third creative day, which involves two separate acts : (1) the crea- tion of dry land and the segregation of the waters into seas ; (2) the creation of plants.

According to the writer of 2 P 3' land was created from water by divine command. This is not distinctly stated in the biblical narrative, which simply affirms that the waters were gathered together into one place, and that the land thereby appeared.

But from subsequent considerations and the parallels from ancient religions which will be cited, it will appear tliat water was undoubtedly regarded as the primitive element out of which created things, including land, emerged, and there can be no question that this conception underlies the first creation narrative, though it is not clearly ex- pressed. Vv.'-"-" describe the work of the fourth day, the creation of heavenly bodies.

Light in a diffused form (niK) had been summoned into existence by God's first creative fiat. How it emerged we are not told, but are left to infer that it was the immediate outflow of divine energy. The heavenly bodies are naturally regarded purely from the terrestrial standpoint. To the naive conceptions of antiquity it was necessary that the creation of a firmament should have preceded that of the luminaries.

For these luminaries were placed on or attached to the firmament or solid vault, and their courses prescribed thereon. It should be • From the Hebrew root ypn ' beat ' or ' stamp ' (hence extend, or Btretoh out) we have an interesting derivative VpTD preserved in the Pncen. inscriptions meaning plate or dish. Of. CIS, Par9 Prima, Tom. i. p. 107, No 90— •n3 -ho in'DSo nSo p" rx pn yp-o (the gold plate (or bowl) which king Melecbjathon, king of Citium, gave). COSMOGONY COS.

MOGONY 503 observed that in Job 38'' the underlying tradition respecting the stars is very dilferent. In the iatler the stars, personified as ' sons of God,' take their part in the work of creation at the beginning, and vry aloud with exultant strains (cf. Ig 5^). Passing over the work of the fifth day (vv. '""), which includes the creation of the lowest forms of animal life that swarm in the water, as well as of the flying creatures, we come to the sixth day (w.

**"'), on which the larger land animals as well as reptiles and sea and river monsters were created. The creation of man in the divine image concludes the narrative. This is not the place to enter into the theological aspects of the parallel phrases ' image ' jfe/eni) and 'likeness' (dimvth), which misplaced ingenuity has separated by hard-and-fast lines of demarcation.

It is necessary, however, to enter a caveat against the view recently propounded by Gnnkel in his stimulating work, Sc/wp/ung u. Chaos, p. 11 ff., who, in opposition to the interpretation osually adopted (sustain-id by Dillmann and Well- hausen), which regards the likeness as internal and spiritual, argues from a comparison of 5''' and Q'-, where tne same expressions occur, that the resemblance here refers to external form or itiape. But such an inference is altogether gratuit- ous.

Though it is quite conceivable that in some ancient form of the tradition, or in another con- nexion as 5', such terms as zdem might connote external shape, such a meaning here in relation to God is altogether out of harmony with the spirit of this post-exilic document. Another point to which we must refer is the much discussed ' let us make man . .'

The plural is here best ex- plained in reference to angels who participate in the work of creation (in Job called 'sons of God,' and identihed with stars Job 38"', cf. Jg 5^, and elsewhere called niKji, cf. 1 K 2'2"'). Such an in- terjiretation is sustained by Gn 11' (J) and Is 6. For other explanations see Spurrell, ad loc. III. In interpreting this first cosmogony the greatest difiiculties encounter us at the earlier stages of the drama a.

s it unfolds to us, and the only means of dispelling the obscurity is a closer ana, moreover, a comparative study of the Heb. Semitic cosmos. An endeavour will therefore be made to throw light on this subject from the data of Phoen. as well as Bab. mythology, preserved for us either in Greek writings or upon inscriptions, BO as to present as clear and vivid a conception as possible of the ancient Heb. cosmos. The Ph(En., like the Heb. and the Bab.

cosmo- gony, starts with the concei)tion of a dark abyss of waters or chaos, called by the Hebrews nj-j oVnn ' great TchOm ' (Gn 7")i or simply oVin, and by the Babylonians Tidmat (Tifiintu). According to the Pha;n. cosmogony cited by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. i. 10) from Philo Byblius, this watery material was generated from desire (ird(?os) and spirit (iryeuiia).

Here we find a point of contact with the D'n^(; ij" of Gn 1", though in the biblical cos- mogony the water is not regarded as a product of the action of spirit, but appears to stand as a coelficient with si)irit of the subsequent generative proces.se8.

Now the three clauses, The earth was waste and void, And darkness was upon the face of the deep (Tehrtm), And the breath (spirit) of God was brooding over the waters, conduct us to the conclusion that the writer re- gards waste and void (tf)hu wabohu), deep (TchOm), and waters, as three epithets designating the same thing, viz. the chaotic watery abyss. Accordingly, we may infer that when God entered upon the * On the distinction between image and nmilUude amonj; Rom.

CAth, tbeoloiruuu, see Nilzach, Kvang. Dogmatik, v. 871 ff. creative work there was no distinction between (a) day and night, (i) heaven and earth, (c) dry land (earth) and sea. All that existed were (1) darkness; (2) Tchi'im = T6hu wabohu = waters, i.e. the chaotic watery abyss ; (3) the brooding spirit of God materialized as air. (a) The first distinc- tion emerges with the creation of light, whereby day is separated from night (v.")

(6) The second distinction arises when the firmament or ' heavens ' are formed (v.*). (c) The third distinction was effectuated by the separation of water from land, whereby 'dry land,' or 'earth' in the narrower sense, was formed. The T6h6m (njT o'lnri) was no mere figment of the imagination, or the conception of some far distant cosmic condition, to the mind of the ancient Heb- rew.

Though it apparent ly assumed the latter char- acter in cosmogonic narrative, it was also a very present and vivid reality. The accompanying diagram will enable the reader to comprehend the ordinary conceptions of an ancient Semite (whethei Babylonian or Hebrew) resjjecting the universe in which he lived. The writer of this article sketched this outline from a study of numerous OT passages about twelve years ago, and found in Jensen's Cosmoloqie der Bab.

, published in 1890, a diagram almost identical in character, descriptive of the universe according to Bab. conceptions, and based purely upon the data of the cuneiform inscriptions. In both we have a heavenly upper ocean, and in both the earth was conceived as resting upon a vast water-depth or Tiihflm (called also in baby- Ionian apsu). The Hebrews thought of the world as a disc (Jin, cf. Is 40") ; and to this earthly dise corresponded the heavenly disc (also called «n, cf. Job 22", Pr 8").

Beneath the earth rested the unknown and mysterious TfhOm RnhhAh (cf. the lang\iage of Ps 24'). The flood not only descended through the windows of heaven (see above), but also ascended from the deep nether springs, called ' springs of the great Tcliftm ' (Gn 7" P«), which were cleft open. These deep springs were accord- ingly called TlhOmCth (Pr 3*), and were believed to communicate through the depths of the earth by means of passages with the great Tohrtm which lay below. In a striking jia.

ssage in Am (7*) the prophet portrays a jiulgment in which the fire of J" will devour this great water-depth. Within the earth itself lay the realm of the ueparted, Shedl or Hades.

That mythical ideasand personifications clust«red round this mysterious chaotic water-depth in the thoughts of the ancient Semites, is abundantly 504 C0SM0G02s'Y CUSMOGO^' Y shown, not only in the legends of the Babylonians, preserved in their inscriptions, to which we shall presently refer, but also in the references to be found in Heb. literature. The dark water-depth was represented as a dragon or serpent, and was called by various names. Images were formed of it* (E.1C 20^).

Sometimes it is called Rahnb, a dragon which entered into conflict with J" and was destroyed by Him (Is SI*"-, Job 2&-<'-). At other time." it is named Leviathani (Job 41, cf. Ps 74""''), or again it is simply called the 'serpent' (Am 9^- •). IV. We shall now proceed to quote from those Sem. cosmogonies, which should be brought into comparison with the Heb. narrative. Since the Hebrews were Semites, and were nurtured from a common stock of ancient Sem.

inheritance, both as to beliefs and usages, such a comparison will be fertile of results. (A) The Phanictan cosmogony has come down to us in a very fragmentary and dubious condition. It is contained in the Prceparatio Evangelica of Eusebius (I. chs. ii. x. and IV. ch. xvi.) He obtained his materials from the 0oi>'i»n} laropla of Philo Byblius. According to Eusebius, i. 6, as well as Porphyry, Philo of Byblus translated these frag- ments from a Phcen. original by Sanchuniathon.

It is not possible for us to enter into the discussion respecting Sanchuniathon. (It will be sutiicient to refer the reader to Baudissin's elaborate essay in his Studien zur Sem. Jieligiongeschichte, i. pp. 1-46, where references to the literature on this subject are fully given. ) We shall content ourselves with citing in summarized form the Phcen. cosmogony so far as it can be intelligibly presented from the obscure pages of Eusebius.

At the bej^inning of things nothing existed but limitless Chaos and Spirit (n-KtJtta). A third lactor is introduced in the form of Desire (toI};), correspondinp to the ipoti of Greek legend. Desire arose an a blending (tXox,) of the 'spirit ' with ' love.' The ultim- ate issue, obscurely described and difficult to interpret, was M*rT. This name M«t is a feminine abstract form from iD = 'iP water.; Thia correaponda in all probability to the T^om of the biblical narrative.

'Out of this," says the account from which we are quoting, ' sprang all the seed of the Creation.' All these seeds or germs of things were formed into an egg (and, acconiing to Damascius, broke into two parts, heaven and earth). From Moir gleamed forth sun, moon, and stars ; and these became endowed with intelligence, and received the name ZatipArfi^r, C'Cy' *^i heavenly watchers or guardians.

As soon as air, land, and sea were heated by the sun, winds arose as well as clo\ids and violent downpours of the heavenly waters, thunder and lightning. By these thunderstorms animated shapes, male and female, began to stir in sea and on land. It may be remarked that the conception of the origin of the universe from water is thoroufbly Semitic. Berosus, as we shall have occasion to M«, Inten^reis the name of the primal matter, 'O/mpmu or eikmrt, by »iX«ir«^«.

Another cosmogony cited by Eusebius makes the two mortals Aluiv and Hpurdyovot begotten of KoXrio and his wife BaoO. The word KoXTrio has been variously interpreted as n; •$ Sip, voice of J"'s mouth, and as n-E ""p voice of breath. Neither of these explanations lias much probability, but it is generally held that BaoC is tlie Heb. tnla or chaos, ft is not neces.sary to cite further varieties of tlie Phoenician cosmo;;i)nic legend, as they fail to throw any light on the biblical narrative.

(n) More imjiortant for the biblical student is the Babylonum cusinoguny. Not only are its features more significant in their bearing on the first creation narrative, but it has come down to us in a more complete form, and through two distinct sources. It has been handed down to us through • Comp. the ref. by Berosus to animal shapes in the temple of Bel (cited below), and Ounkel, Schdpf. p. 2K. t The diagram clearly exhibits the close connexion between 009i\o and the water-depth.

Leviathan embodies the idea of a serpent, lUte Oceanus, coiled round the earth. Jensen, Cotmo- togu, p. 281 ; Sayce, Uibb. Uct. pp. 104, llfl ; Gunkel, SchOp/. p. 46. I Baudissin, Studim, i. p. 12. Ct. Schroder, PhUn. Sprathe, p. 133. Philo adds the explanation that Mur was explained by > u mud tjid by others as a putret}-ing nater; mixture. Greek sources, which have been ob.?

cured by trans- mission through a Christian writing, and we also possess it in a series of tablets containing the original cuneiform Bab. creation epic. Before the discovery, in 187.5, by tlie late George Smith, of the fragments of the Bab. creation account in the ruined library of Asurbanipal (pub- lished in TSBA iv. 1876), this legend was known to us only in the mutilated records of Berosus. Berosus was a priest of Bel in Babylon about B.C. 300. His recital of the Bab.

story of creation was handed down by Alexander Polyhistor, and it is from this source that Eusebius (in liis Chronicon, bk. i.) has borrowed. We shall now give the translation of the more salient passages in the words of Gunkel, who has carefully examined the te.\t. ' Primarily all consisted of darkness and water, and strange creatures of peculiar form arose therein.

There were men with two wings, some also with four wings and two faces, and soma which liad one body but two heads, one male and the other female . . other men with goat's feet and horns, or with horse's feet, or like horses behind and like men in front, and therefore in the form of hippocentaurs. . Besides these there were fish, creeping things, serpents, and all kinds of strange creatures of varied shapes. The images of them are to be seen in the temple of Bel as dedication ^fts.

Over them tliere reigned a woman, Om Orka,* which in Chaldee is Thamte t [Ti^mat], in Greek ©aX«wff«. Under this condition of the world Bel came over [i.e. the Marduk of the cuneiform narrative], cleft the woman in twain, and made from one half of her the earth, and from the other the heavens, and destroyed the beasts which belonged to her. ' Now this narrative, as he asserts [i.e.

Berosus, for at this point Eusebius interrupts the citation in order to give an alle- gorical explanation], is intended to be an allegorical representa- tion of the processes of nature. The universe was formerly in a state of flux, and the creatures above described arose in it. Bel, however (in Greek Ziuf), cleft the darkness in the midst, and so divided heaven and earth from one another, and thereby established the order of the universe.

The creatures, how- ever, could not endure the power of light, and perished [so far the allegorical interpretation, then follows the remainder of the myth]. ' So when Bel saw the earth destitute of inhabitants and fruit, he commanded one of the gods to cut off his [Bel's] head, and to mix the earth with the blood which flowed from it, and thereby to fashion men and animals that should be capable of enduring the air. Bel also completed the creation of the stars, sun, moon, and five planets.'

Unfortunately, the polemical bias of ;Eusebiua mars the rational consistency of his quotations. He appears to make his excerpts in order to hold them up to ridicule. Thus Bel creates heavenly bodies after his decapitation. There seems to be a confusion here between Bel and Tiamat, as the cuneiform record appears to show. It is quite possible that some of the confusions in the narra- tive may have existed in the text cf Alexander Polyhistor.

We shall now proceed to give a summary of the Babylonian creation epic brought to light by the discovery of the original cuneiform texts. In the beginning, before heaven and earth existed, when the primal father Apsu (ocean) and the iiriinal mother Ti&mat mingled their waters, the gods arose, Labmu, Lahamu, Anshar, Kiahar, and Anu. This is the summary of the fragmentary creation account cited by Schroder in COT i. on Gn 1'.

The following translation of the first tablet in the Babylonian creation epic we give approximately in the words of Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch.who has recently published a carefully edited text of the entire Creation Epic Series (Dot Baliylonitclit WelUchdp- Jungs Epo$t Leipzig ; Hirzel, 1896) — ' M'hen above the heaven was not named I Beneath the earth did not record a name.

The ocean {Apmi) the primeval was their begettaf The tumult S Tiamat was mother of them all, Their waters in one united together Fields H were not bounded, marshes were not yet to be seen. Gunkel rightly interprets ■Oixipnm as npiK CH mother of the depth. See his long and instructive note, p. 18. t The texts give e«ilT(. Roberuon Smith, however, correct* to e<u.Ti, ZA vi. p. 339. J To a Semite name connotes existence and power.

JSo Schroder and Jensen (' Wirrwarr ') ; Dehtzsob renders 'Oetose.' The meaning of mummu is verj' doubtful. Delitzsch questions the derivation of the word from the root O'.l or CDl. II Again a doubtful passage. On giparu see Delitisoh, Dai Bab. Sch(ipfung$epoe, p. 119 ; Jensen, Votinol. p 326. COSMOGONY UUS.MUGUXY 505 At a time when of the gods none had come forth No name did they bear, destinations were not [detenniDed] Then were the gods bom L:ihnii] l^hamu came forth.

Great pehmls vanished [of times many passed by] Aiidhur, Kitftiar were bom Long days passe<1 by ' [or as Jensen and Zimmera : * the days became long ']. (The rest is fragmenbary, u>d simply contains the names Anu and Aosbar]. We can only infer from the context what the lost remainder of this tablet contained. Probably, it described how the nods of the upper world and of the depth came into being, and possibly the creation of light.

Then must have fotlowed ttie rcheUiou of the lower deities, arrayed under Ti&mat, against the upper deities. We have a fragrnent describing a conversation between Apsu and Ti&iuat, in which the end of their consultation is that they ' plan evil ' against the gods. Gunkel thinks that the creation of light was the cause of their insurrection, but of this we liave not sufficient evidence. The legible portion of the tablet then proceeds to describe the conflict between Ti&mat and the gods.

In their war against Tiamat and the deities ranged under her leadership, the gods are commanded by Anshar, father of Anu. lie is supported, not only by Anu, but also by Ea and his son Marduk. La^mu and I^hamu bring up the rear. Anshar at first sends Anu and then Ea to conduct the battle against Ti&mat, hut as both shrink back in terror, Marduk the son of Ea is eventually commissioned to undertake the struggle with TiAmat. He is armed with a net, bow.

Javelin, and apparently a trident (rntt/u), and so advances to the conflict. The go<ldeB8 of the deep is skilfully caught by Marduk in a net, a hurricane is driven mto her open throat, and he smites her body with his Javelin. Her allies flee, but are overtaken, and their weapons broken. The body of TiAraat is then divided into two parts, Mike that of a fish.' With one part Manhik ' made and covered' the heaven.* Bars are placed, and sentinels, so that the waters may not stream through.

The arch of heaven Is placed opposite the primal waters. After this Manluk created the heavenly bodies ; out the fifth tablet of the creation epic on which this is described is very obscure. The first few lines may bs rendered — He erected the station for the ^reat gods Stars like . . He appointed the year, divided off sections He divided the twelve months [each] by three stars.

On another doubtful tablet we read that he created three classes of land animals — fleld-cattle, wild beasts of the field, and creeping things. The conclusion of the Bab. creation pcem is recorded on the sixth tablet, which contains a h.Mnn to the tlory of Marduk. ' God of pure Ufe, Oo<i of kindly breath. Lord of hearing and grace, creator of fulness, maker of abund- ance, Ood of the pure crown, raiser of the deati. .

May one rejoice over the Lord of Gods, Marduk, cause one's land to alK>und, himself enjoy peace. Firm abideth His word, His com- mand changetb not. No god hath caused the utterance of His mouth to fail.' It is impossible to study the features of this epic without noting remarkable parallels to tlie first biblical cosmoj^ony. What, then, is the actual relation which subsists between thera? If the creation account in Gn 1 and this Bab.

epic were the only points of contact between Israel and Babylonia, it might be possible to e.\plain the Bab. mj'tn aa a development from the simpler and purer tradition contained in the Bible. But such an explanation is untenable in view of the estab- lished results — (1) Of a critical examination of the OT literature, which cannot allow an earlier date for the document P» than the period of the Exile. (2) Of Assyriolopy.

The discovery of the Tel el- Amama tablets in 1887, and of a cuneiform tablet at Lachish belonging to the same period as those of Tel el-Araama, renders it absolutely certain that Bab. influence widely prevailed in Palestine about B.C. 1500-1400. (.') \\ e have many other remark- able paraUels, viz.

in the l'"lood story and other elements in the pre-exilian Jahwistic document (including the account of Paradise and the story of the Fall) between the Scripture records and those of the cuneiform tablets.

All this renders it extremely probable that the biblical form in which these narrotions have been preserved, with their unquestionably Palestinian colouring, is the result of many centuries of growth on Palastinion soil • How widespread this conception was of a primeval rending afunder of sky and earth Into an upper and lower half may be gathered from the New Zealand Maori myth quoted in Tylor, Prim, Cuiture, 1. 32'.! IT. This feature, we are told, is *a far- spread Polynesian legend.' (cf.

Schrader, COT i. pp. 43 ff., 52-r)5). This problem of the relation of the Bab. epic to Gn 1 lias recently been made the subject of a search- ing investigation by Gunkel, Scliopf. u. Chaos,' from which quotation has already been made. This writer does full justice to the glaring con- trasts. In the Bab. epic we have wild, grotesque, tumultuous mythology expressed in poetic form. In the biblical account we have serene majestic calm and sober prose.

In the one, the gods rise into being in the course of the drama. In the other, God pre-exists and remains from the first the creative source whose command summons each new order of created things into existence. Yet the parallels are as remarkable aa the con- trasts. For (1) in both the world at the beginning consists of water and darkness. (2) The Tehftm of the 2nd verse is the Babylonian Tidmtu (Tiamat). (3) God divides the primal waters by means of the firmament into two parts.

This feature corre- sponds to the episode in the 4th tablet of the creation epic (lines 137ff. in Fried. Delitzsch's version)— * He cleft her (Tiftmat) like a fish ... in two halves. From the one half he made and covered the heaven : He drew a barrier, placed sentinels, Ck)mmanded them not to let its waters through.' (4) In Gn 1 light arises before the creation of the heavenly bodies. Also in the Bab.

myth we may suppose that light appeared before the coming of Marduk the youngest of the gods, since light be- longs to the essence of the 'upper gods.' (5) The creation of sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day may be placed parallel with the creation of the heavenly bodies by Marduk, recorded in the 5th creation tablet, special mention being made of the moon-god (Nannaru) as ruler of the night (lines 12tJ'. in Fried. Delitzsch's ed.) (6) God beholds all, and calls it good.

Compare the hymn of praise to Marduk (already quoted) at the conclusion of the Bab. epic. (7) Creation of the beasts of the field, wild animals, and creeping things is also found on a fragment (copied in cuneiform by Delitzsch, Assj/i: Lesest.'), but it is not certain whether it belongs to the same Creation Epic Series above quoted. (8) Lastly, the seventh day, or Sabbath of divine rest, is essentially of Bao. origin. See Schrader, COT i. p. 1811. ; Sayce, Expos. Times, March 1896, p. 204.

It has been forcibly argued by Gunkel that the Bab. creation myth, involving a conflict between Tiftmat, the dragon of chaotic darkness, and Marduk, the god of light and order, had influenced Israel Ion" before the Exile period. It is true that passages Tike Is SI""- (where Kahab the dragon is a reminiscence of TiAniat) belong to the Exile period, and Cheyne thinks ' there is suflicient evi- dence that there was a great revival of the mytho- logic spirit among the Jews in the Bab. and "Pers.

periods, and it is very possible that the old myths assumed more definite forms through the direct and indirect influence of Babylonia.' t On the other hand, it must be remembered that Jer 4^"' (cf. 5'^-) is a genuine proiluct of the 7th cent. (cf. Cornill's ed. in SJiO'J'), and this nii|iarently reflects the same tradition of J"'s conflict with watery chaos (an idea which we also meet in Nah 1), while the reference in Am ff' to the serpent at the bottom of the ocean belongs to the 8lh cent.

, and the brazen sea of Solomon's temple ( I K 7"*'"), with it-s twelve supporting oxen, carries us back to the loth. This last was evidently ba.sed on the apst or ocean-abysses of the temples of Marduk.^ (Cf. Schra<ier, JilB iiL 1, pp. 13, 143, and footnotes.) • See the discriminating review of this work by Prot Oheyns In Cn(. Jiev. July 1805. t CHI. Hen. ih. p. 2«). I Cf. Sayce, Jixpo: Timu, March ISIKI, p. 2«4.

506 COSMOGONY COSMOGONY These facts, as well as the features in the Jah- wistic narrative above referred to, justify us in seeking a much earlier period than the Exile for the original adoption by primitive Israel of the elements of Bab. tradition. The most probable theory is that these influences found their way into Palestine, together with certain features of Bab. civilization (including measures of weight and money) some time before B.C. 1450 (the age of the Tel el-Amama inscr.)

, and along this path passed ultimately into the possession of ancient Israel, and became assimilated into their stock of intel- lectual possessions. It then became, in the course of centuries, gradually modified and stripped of its mythological features. In Gn 1' we have it in the purified Judaic form. There ia a complete obliteration of the polytheistic elements of the genesis of the gods, and the titanic struggle be- tween Ti&mat and Marduk, which preceded the creative process in the Bab.

myth. On the other hand, it contains certain features which clearly reveal a primitive Bab. type. Driver {Guardian, July 29, 1896) accurately states the true relation of the biblical to the Bab. cosmogony when he says : ' The narrative of Gn 1 comes at the end of a long process of gradual elimination of heathen elements, and of gradual assimilation to the purer teachings of Israelitish theology, carried on under the spiritual influences of the religion of Israel.' V.

According to the biblical narrative, the world was created by a divine command, and every new stage in the creative process is introduced by the formula ' God said.' Another noteworthy feature to which attention has already been called, is the phrase ' l«t us make man ' (v.), wherein we have a point «i contact ivith the conception of subordinate angelic powers ('sons of God ), who co-operated with God in the work of creation (Job 38"').

Here we observe the germ of that belief in inter- mediate agencies between God and the universe which was destined in later times to become a most important factor in Jewish theology. This conception became developed into the 'Wisdom ' which was with God in the beginning, before the creation of the cosmos, and was with God when He jstablished the heavens (Pr S"-^', cf. S"-*).

This ' third cosmogony,' as Cheyne not inaptly calls it,* is the product of that growing belief in the transcendent greatness of God which began with Amos, and received a great impulse from the sublime teachings of the Deutero- Isaiah (cf. esp. Is 40). The influence of Greek philosophy — more particularly of Platonism — made itself felt in Judaism, and in proportion as God came to be re- garded as transcendent and absolute, a Logos doctrine became a necessary factor of thought.

Philo became the representative in Judaism of the Alexandrine philosophy. On one side, from eternity we have God as the absolutely active principle ; on the other, matter formless and without qualities, the principle of absolute passivity. God produces first the world of ideas. Logos or /ciir/ios KMjris. This Logos becomes the mediating cause, between the absolute and transcendent Deity and the passive formless matter, in the generation of the world.

This is not the place to indicate the transi- tion from this position to that occupied by the writer of the Ep. to the Hebrews or the Logos doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, for this subject belong to Christology. In Judaic theology the place of the Logos in the creation of the world is partly occupied by the doctrine of the pre-existent emanation of the T6rah from God, partly by Memra.

This principle of the Tfirah as a mediating element or occasion in the creation of the world is expressed in Berfishith Rabba 1, for the Tfirah cannot be realized without * Id hia article ' Coamogony ' (EncycL BriL). the creation of man. From the same treatise (c. 9) we learn that a curious inference was drawn from the words, ' God saw all that he had made, and behold it was very good' (Gn 1^'), liz. that God had previously created worlds, and they did not please Him, so He destroyed them.

According to sliemoth Rabba, c. 30, these reverted to the primal Tohu Wabohu until the present world was created. Moreover, there are undoubted traces in the Talmud of the influence of the old Bab. tra^li- tions. For later Jewish writers held that prima) matter exercised certain powers of resistance until God's creative energy coerced them by the limita- tions it imposed. They believed in the existence of primeval monstrous animal forms, and in a female Leviathan (cf.

Tidmat), who was slaughtered in order to prevent the increase of the monstrous brood. The doctrine respecting the Heavens and the Earth, taught in later Judaism, also possesses its points of contact with ancient Babylonian tradition though founded upon biblical record. To one of these we shall refer presently. Meanwhile it may be observed that while Scripture regards the universe as one, having the earth as its centre, later Judaism did not adhere to this unity.

We read of the upper world and the under world, of God's world and man's world. In the Targ. Jerusal. 1, Gn IS* Abraham calls J" ' Lord of tOl worlds.' Aboda Zara S" reckons 18,000 worlds. But the most remarkable cosmic doctrine is that of the Seven Heavens. Jewish Rabbis were not quite agreed as to this number. According to Rabbi Jehuda there were only two, but according to the common doctrine there were seven. R. H.

Charles has recently contributed two exceedingly instructive papers on this subject to the Expos Times (Nov. and Dec. 1895), in which he draw^ special attention to the Bab. conception of th« sevenfold division of the Lower World. (On this point interesting information may be obtained from Jensen's Cosmologie der Bab. p. 232 S.)

Readers of the Babylonian mythic romance (in the Gilgamtsh [Izdubar] series), called the ' Descent of Islitar to Hades,' will remember that she was obliged to pass through seven gateways in order to reach the interior of the infernal city. Though the inscriptions do not expressly state that the heavens were so divided, it is legitimate to surmise either that the Babylonians themselves conceived of a similar division of the heavens, or that this correlative became subsequently developed.

The former is more probable, for not only do we find the doctrine of the Seven Heavens among the Jews, but also among the Parsees. We find the same conception in the recently discovered Slavonic Enoch (translated by Mornll), and also in other apocalyptic literature, as the 'Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.'

'This later cosmic conception, which grew up in connexion with the doctni e of God's absolute transcendence, is of some imporxAuce in its bearing upon such passages as 2 Co 12'- ', He 4"'- '*. In reference to the difficult passage Eph 6", Charles most usefully cites from Slavonic Enoch 2£H- '. (Further information respecting the Jewish doctrine may be found in Weber, Syitem der Altsynaa. Paldst. Theol. p. 197 S.) VI.

We have now concluded our task of expound- ing the biblical conceptions respecting cosmogony and the cosmos. It is manifestly beyond the true scope of this article to deal with the cosmogonies of Egypt, Persia, and India, though these also exhibit interesting parallels with the Scripture narrative.

Undoubtedly there were points of historic contact, and these of no little importance, between Egypt and ancient Israel, but the course of recent investigation has not strengthened the impression that Egypt exercised any deep or lasting inflnence on Hebrew cosmogony. It is to COSMOGONY COULTER 607 Bxbylonia, the land of the highest and most ancient Sem. culture, we must look for the most fruitful clues to ancient Heb. thought and life.

— Nor is it necessary to refer to Persian cosmogonies, for Pers. influence entered into the sphere of Jewish life too late to all'ect the cosmogonic con- ceptions of Genesis. It may here be remarlved that no chaos exists in the Persian cosmogon}' as it is preoented in the Bundehesh. A separation is made between the creation of the present world and of the other world .'\Ioreover, in the former we find a distinct creation by the Good and by the Evil deity.

But those conceptions have a com- paratively late origin. Respecting the creation legends of E<'ypt, Persia, and India, the reader is referred to Dillmann's introductory remarks to Genesis, ch. i. in his great commentary (6th ed. pp. 5-10), and also to Otto Zockler's article ' Schdp- rung ' in Herzo^ and Plitt, E£P, where a compre- hensive survey is given of these cosmogonies as well as those of savage races.

Nor have we thought it necessary to describe the various apologetic schemes whereoy the state- ments that are contained in Genesis are brought into supposed harmony with the ascertained results of moaem science. A history of these successive attempts, with a succinct classification of them, will he found in the article by Zbckler to which reference has been made.

This eminent evangelical scholar and divine concludes his examination of these varied theories with the significant and just remarks : ' The Mosaic account postulates a graduated advance of organic life from plants to animals, and among the latter, from water animals to creeping things and birds, and after that to land animals in the proper sense. But geology regards animals and plants as coming into existence together from the first.

These considerations plainly reveal that the first chapter of Genesis is not intended to teach us the elements of geology, but to reveal to us the fundamental ideas of all theology, those ideas being religious in their essence. It is out of place, therefore, to insist on carrying out the parallel between the Bible and geology into every detail. We can only hope to exhibit a concordance of both in their large bearings and main outlines.'

A very useful article on the same subject, written in a deeply reverent spirit, will be found in the Expasilor, Jan. 1886, by Driver ('The Cosmogony of Genesis'), in which the results of geological rescarcli are care- fully examined and compared with the statements of Scripture. Probably, the most fatal objection, however, is the creation of the heavenly bodies on the fourth day. The language here clearly shows that in the mind of the writer they had not previously existed.

It is obvious, therefore, that day and niglit were not regarded as standing in any causal connexion with the sun. In fact, the sun is no more regarded as causal than the moon. The sun rules or regulates the day, and the moon regulates the night.

Much as we value the remarkable harmonies that nevertheless exist between science and Scrip- ture, there is clear proof that biblical apologetic is proceeding on false lines when it seeks to con- strain the biblical narrative into harmony with the results of modem science.

The preceding expo- sition shows tluit that narrative emerged from a divinely guided history and a divinely moulded process of tliouglit not isolated from the currents of the world of human life around it, but charged witli a great mi.

ssion to gamer out of all the ellorts of humanity to spell out the awful enigma of the universe, that which was most vital and precious for the good of man, to purify it fr'm all mytho- logic taint and inform it with the spiritual monotheLstic conceptions of Judaism. The supreme value of our biblical cosmogony lies in the fact thai it furnishes us with the only key that can solve the dark riddle of life.

It sets God auove the great com plex world-process, and yet closely linked with it, as a personal intelligence and will that rules victori- ously and without a rival. And as the supreme object of His creative enerjnr, it sets man, fashioned in His divine likeness, to be the ruler of created thingb.

All else is secondary, and it is for scientific investi- gation to determine the exact details of those intermediate steps in the stupendous ascent whereby God's work advanced along the vistas of past time to the dawn of human existence.

But without that clear and sublime attestation at the threshold of the inspired record of the personal source from which all has flowed, and of the unique worth and dignity of man, and his near kinship with that source, surely human life would have been far darker and more hopeless, and its deepest Eroblems would have remained unsolved. Upon this asis, laid broad and clear in Genesis, the revela- tion of the New Covenant of Redemption in Christ Jesus rests.

For the mediatorial work of Christ rests on the Fatherhood of the Creator of all things, and on the supreme worth of man, whom Jesus came to save. Owen C. Whitehousb.